UNIVERSITY  OF  OKLAHOMA 
BULLETIN 


THE  'HT  OF  IHt 
APR  12  1220 
8JNJV£RSJTy  OF  IL;j?jC 


UNIVERSAL  MILITARY  TRAINING 

A'  DEBATE  BULLETIN 
J.  W.  SCROGGS,  Editor 


This  bulletin  is  prepared  for  the  Oklahoma  High  School 
Debating  League.  The  Extension  Division  of  the  University 
never  sends  out  materials  on  only  one  side  of  a question;  it  must 
furnish  information  on  both  sides  or  none;  it  will  not  be 
a propaganda  for  anything,  not  even  the  Multiplication  Table; 
its  sole  purpose  is  to  furnish  information  impartially  to  citizens 
of  the  State  who  are  in  need  of  it. 


PUBLIC  INFORMATION  AND  WELFARE 
UNIVERSITY  OF  OKLAHOMA 
EXTENSION  DIVISION 


FOREWORD 

A new  feature  introduced  in  this  bulletin  is  a number  of 
questions  the  object  of  which  is  to  aid  in  getting  at  the 
essential  issues.  No  attempt  has  been  made  to  arrange  them 
in  any  logical  order;  in  fact  such  an  order  has  been  avoided  in 
order  to  keep  from  prejudicing  the  reader  for  or  against  either 
side  of  the  question.  The  sole  object  of  the  questions  is  to 
compel  full  investigation  of  both  sides  of  the  subject,  and  to 
bring  out  more  clearly  the  main  issues  and  chief  clashes  of 
opinion. 

The  student  is  especially  advised  against  one-sided  study 
of  a question.  Even  if  the  purpose  of  the  study  reaches  no 
farther  than  merely  winning  the  debate,  it  is  best  to  know 
and  do  full  justice  to  both  sides.  Debating  should  not  develop 
partizanship.  The  debater  should  first  of  all  be  fair.  He 
should  scorn  to  use  an  argument  which  he  believes  to  be  un- 
true. To  press  arguments  which  you  believe  to  be  false  not 
only  reacts  upon  your  own  moral  nature  but  must  weaken 
your  power  to  talk  convincingly.  To  acquire  facility  in  simu- 
lating conviction  which  you  do  not  have  is  making  you  a skill- 
ful hypocrite,  even  if  it  be  of  some  minor  advantage.  Be- 
lieving that  the  arguments  on  the  opposite  side  are  superior 
to  those  for  the  side  you  are  appointed  on  does  not  perclude 
your  stating  yours  with  all  possible  clearness  and  force. 
Knowing  both  sides  may  make  you  less  a partizan,  but  a better 
debater. 

University  of  Oklahoma  J.  W.  SCROGGS  , 

Extension  Division  Dept.  Public  Information  and  Welfare 


QUESTION  ADOPTED  BY  THE  OKLAHOMA  HIGH 
SCHOOL  DEBATING  LEAGUE  FOR  1919-20 

Resolved: — That  Universial  Military  Training  should  he 
adopted  in  the  United  States. 


THE  EFFECT  ON  AMERICAN  INSTITUTIONS  OF  A 
POWERFUL  MILITARY  AND  NAVAL 
ESTABLISHMENT 

BY  HERBERT  CROLY, 

Editor,  The  New  Republic,  New  York  City 

Of  ail  the  novel  and  perplexing  problems  which  have  been 
fastened  on  the  American  nation  by  the  proposal  to  make  a very 
arge  increase  m its  military  and  naval  armament,  there  is  none  which 
mstles  with  more  difficulties  than  the  subject  on  which  I am 
addressing  you  this  morning.  What  will  be  the  effect  on  American 
domestic  life  and  institutions  of  a more  efficient,  expensive,  and 
powerful  military  and  naval  establishment? 

Americans  who  are  opposing  “preparedness”  are  basing  their 
opposition  largely  upon  the  havoc  which  it  is  expected  to  work  in 
our  traditional  internal  order.  Americans  who  are  advocating 
preparedness  are  basing  their  approval  larg^ily  upon  the  better 

lertnl  '^h T '™Pose  upon  our  time-honored  in- 

ternal chaos.  Americans  who  are  hesitating  are  basing  their 
hesitation  largely  upon  misgivings  as  to  the  wisdom  of  exposing 
American  institutions  and  life  to  the  corrosive  effect  of  such  f 

Wrk  " n"  ' .i™°vation.  These  are  the  questions  which 
^ erican  public  opinion  is  considering  most  anxiously  and  with 
the  smallest  prospect  of  future  agreement.  The  country  is  not 
' inking  so  much  about  what  we  can  and  should  do  with  a larger 
army  and  navy.  It  is  thinking  rather  about  what  a larger  army  and 
navy  may  or  will  do  to  us.  “ 

Preoccupation  with  the  domestic  effects  of  military  prepared- 
^ss  presided  at  its  official  birth.  Last  summer  when  Resident 
Wilson  decided  to  include  in  the  legislative  program  of  the  admin- 
i^ration  provision  for  a large  army  he  ordered  his  Secretary  of 
War  to  make  the  plans  for  an  increase  conforming  to  the  ebst- 

clear.  He  had  decided  that  more  soldiers  must  be  enlisted  and 
rained  presumably  because  they  might  be  needed  for  certain 

chwi”  "“f*"  *’‘‘''‘"8  i-cached  this  decision,  he  was 

chiefly  occupied,  not  with  the  number  and  kind  of  soldiers  de- 
manded by  these  practical  needs,  but  with  the  effect  of  any  increase 
upon  the  opinions  and  traditions  of  his  fellow-countrymen 


4 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  OKLAHOMA 


He  knew  his  proposals  would  meet  with  lively  opposition  based 
chiefly  on  the  presumptive  un-Americanism  of  large  armies,  and 
he  preferred  to  bestow  on  the  plans  of  the  administration  not  so 
much  the  positive  merit  of  careful  adaption  to  the  practical  need 
as  the  negative  merit  of  conformity  to  a prevailing  tradition.  In 
order  to  make  them  politically  acceptable  the  administration  plans 
should  look  unoffensive  and  not  too  unfamiliar.  The  American 
aimy  had  always  been  the  creature  of  domestic  political  policy 
and  so  it  must  remain. 

In  adopting  this  course,  President  Wilson  was  behaving  like 
a shrewd  and  cautious  political  leader.  It  was  the  course  cal- 
culated to  effect  a certain  result  with  the  smallest  friction.  He  has 
been  rewarded  by  the  practical  collapse  of  the  opposition  to  his 
program.  It  has  been  an  adroit  achievement  and  an  important 
success.  But  the  fullest  possible  recognition  of  the  achievement 
should  not  blind  us  to  the  disadvantages  of  the  method.  The  suc- 
cess was  purchased  by  a lack  of  thoroughness  in  framing  the  de- 
tails of  the  plans  and  by  a lack  of  frankness  in  explaining  their 
meaning  and  consequences.  The  technical  obstacles  to  adequate 
preparation  and  its  political  penalties  .and  dangers  have  been  under- 
estimated and  evaded  rather  than  courageously  confronted  and 
definitely  overcome.  As  a result  the  American  people  are  acting 
in  a grave  national  crisis  without  any  sufficient  understanding  of 
the  bearing  of  the  new  policy  on  their  past  and  its  probable  effects 
on  their  future. 

The  American  tradition  of  military  organization  and  policy 
which  President  Wilson  wisht  to  preserve  was  not  on  its  merits 
worth  so  much  anxious  solicitude.  It  called  for  a small  standing 
professional  army  which  was  really  no  more  than  a national  police 
force.  Its  members,  organization  and  equipment  were  not  adjusted 
to  a foreign  policy  or  an  international  condition.  Invasion  was  not 
considered  a danger  against  which  any  elaborate  precautions  needed 
to  be  taken.  In  the  event  of  war  the  navy  would  act  as  a screen,  be- 
hind which  could  be  trained  around  a nucleus  furnished  by  the 
state  militia  a volunteer  citizen’s  navy.  The  aspect  of  this  sys- 
tem which  Mr.  Wilson  probably  considered  most  precious  was  its 
underlying  and  almost  complete  civilianism.  It  included  a pro- 
fessional army,  to  be  sure,  but  only  in  insignificant  numbers.  The 
United  States  depended  ultimately  for  its  soldiers  upon  its  citizens 
and  it  had  consequently  no  reason  to  fear  the  corruption  of  its 
democratic  institutions  and  ideals  by  a military  caste  or  spirit.  All 
this  is  true,  but  it  is  also  true  that  the  system  was  a tissue  of 
inadequacies  and  contradictions.  It  evaded  every  difficulty  and 


UNIVERSAL  MILITARY  TRAINING  5 

ignored  every  serious  responsibility  involved  by  military  prepar- 
edness. 

A democracy  should  depend  ultimately  for  its  soldiers  on  its 
citizens ; but  our  traditional  system  only  pretended  to  create  an 
armed  citizenry.  Its  trained  soldiers  were  prevented  from  being 
citizens ; its  citizens  were  never  sufficiently  trained  to  be  good 
soldiers.  The  American  people  had  no  reason  to  fear  their  army, 
but  neither  had  the  possible  enemies  of  the  American  people.  It 
was  not  intended  to  be  dangerous  to  anybody  but  a few  foreign  or 
domestic  marauders.  Congress  always  refused  to  incorporate  in 
it  a coherent  formative  idea.  It  was  partly  professional  and  partly 
amateur,  partly  under  national  and  partly  under  state  jurisdiction, 
partly  based  upon  the  idea  of  service  and  partly  upon  an  appeal 
to  mercenary  motives.  But  above  all  it  was  wholly  and  inten- 
tionally innocuous.  It  was  essentially  an  attempt  to  assure  civilian 
control  over  the  military  machine  less  by  making  the  civil  authority 
strong,  clear-sighted,  able  and  worthy,  than  by  making  the  army 
feeble  and  incompetent. 

If,  as  President  Wilson  decided  last  summer,  the  American 
democracy  was  finally  faced  by  the  necessity  of  seriously  preparing 
during  peace  for  the  possibility  of  war,  this  national  tradition  in 
military  organization  needed  to  be  radically  modified  rather  than 
loyally  cherished  and  preserved.  The  traditional  military  sys- 
tem can  be  fairly  characterized  as  organized  unpreparedness.  Am- 
ericans had  believed  themiselves  immune  from  the  grim  necessity  of 
anticipating  and  providing  either  against  social  evils  at  home  or  the 
defense  of  national  policies  abroad.  America  was  the  promised 
land  precisely  because  it  was  delivered  from  such  moral  and  phy- 
sical stresses  and  from  the  structural  reenforcement,  necessary  to 
withstand  j them.  Some  years  ago,  one-half  of  these  expectations 
began  to  be  abandoned.  It  became  only  too  apparent  that  American 
domestic  economy  is  not  a stream  which  purified  in  the  running.  It 
had  developed  the  same  social  disorders  as  the  older  European 
societies  and  similar  precautions  must  be  taken  against  them.  The 
decision  to  increase  the  army  and  navy  means  the  abandonment 
also  of  the  other  half.  The  organized  unpreparedness  of  our 
military  system  had  been  based  upon  a conception  of  interna,tional 
relationships  and  of  ensuing  American  dangers,  opportunities  and 
responsibilities  which  had  ceased  to  be  true.  The  indispensable 
condition  of  any  effective  military  preparation  was  a declaration 
of  war  against  an  essential  aspect  of  the  very  tradition  which  the 
President  was  seeking  so  sedulously  to  preserve. 

In  so  far  as  the  American  tradition  in  military  organization 


6 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  OKLAHOMA 


consisted  in  the  strict  and  absolute  subordination  of  the  military 
and  naval  machines  to  ultimate  civilian  control  and  their  employ- 
ment for  valid  political  purposes,  everygood  American  will  at- 
tach the  utmost  importance  to  its  preservation.  But  in  so  far  as 
the  civilian  control  was  obtained  by  paralyzing  the  army  rather 
than  by  organizing  the  nation,  strengthening  its  government  and 
clarifying  its  policy,  the  existing  tradition  manifestly  constitutes  an 
insuperable  obstacle  to  effective  military  preparation.  The  larger 
army  and  navy  must  be  intended  and  made  ready  for  actual  definite 
service.  In  so  far  as  it  is  ready  for  specific  service,  the  army 
must  be  a dangerous  weapon.  It  must  be  dangerous  to  the  possible 
enemies  of  the  United  States ; and  it  must  be  dangerous  to  our 
traditional  internal  equilibrium.  Unless  the  American  people  arc 
willing  and  ready  to  create  a powerful  weapon,  which  if  misused 
would  prove  to  be  harmful  to  them  no  less  than  their  possible 
enemies,  the  money  and  energy  spent  on  military  preparations  will 
continue  to  be  a colossal  waste.  As  a matter  of  fact  the  American 
people  proved  more  willing  to  create  a powerful  weapon  than  its 
chosen  leaders  imagined.  The  original  program  of  the  administra- 
tion was  indeed  framed  to  look  innocuous  rather  than  dangerous. 
It  was  based  chiefly  upon  the  principle  of  amplifying  our  defici- 
encies. But  the  original  program  has  been  radically  modified,  and 
every  modification  has  tended  to  make  it  less  innocuous  and  more 
dangerous.  A reluctant  Democratic  administration  and  Congress, 
which  had  every  disposition  to  keep  down  the  scope  and  cost  of 
military  “preparedness”,  have  been  forced  by  the  logic  of  their  owii 
decision  to  build  very  much  more  than  they  intended.  The  final 
legislation  is  likely  to  provide  for  a really  formidable  fighting 
force — one  which  will  be  measurably  adjusted  in  size,  training  and 
equipment  to  the  probable  needs  of  national  policy. 

The  outstanding  fact  in  the  proposed  military  re-organiza- 
tion is  the  increase  in  the  professional  standing  army.  In  the 
original  plan  little  attempt  was  made  to  convert  the  regular  army 
into  a force  which  was  capable  of  defending  the  territory  of  the 
United  States  against  invasion  or  promoting  its  policies  abroad. 
That  task  was  reserved  for  a body  of  national  militia  which  was 
subsequently  modified  by  the  House  Committee  into  a body  of 
“federalized”  state  militia.  But  the  more  these  bodies  of  militia 
were  examined  the  more  untrustworthy  they  looked ; and  the 
more  .public  opinion  came  to  favor  an  increase  in  the  regular 
army  as  the  one  really  dependable  military  force.  The  regular 
army  is  being  increased  until,  with  its  own  automatically  created 
reserve,  it  may,  if  it  can  be  recruited,  afford  a sufficient  protec- 


U N I V E R S A L M I L I T A R Y T R A I N I N G 


tion  against  invasion,  and  protection  against  invasion  is  what  the 
public  and  the  military  experts  have  on  the  tops  of  their  minds. 
lUit  merely  as  a consequence  of  organizing  an  effective  army  for 
defense  Congress  has  done  very  much  more.  It  has  organized 
an  army  which  may  also  constitute  a formidable  aggressive  force. 
Instead  of  creating  as  the  President  and  the  Democratic  leaders 
intended,  a safe  and  sane  army,  they  are  being  driven  to  create 
a really  dangerous  army — a professional  force,  as  far  as  possible 
removed  from  the  conception  of  an  armed  citizenry. 

The  new  American  army  will  be  unsafe  for  two  reasons.  An 
army  of  this  kind  is  really  adapted  chiefly  to  service  abroad  and 
consequently  to  something  more  than  a defensive  foreign  policy. 
It  is  also  the  kind  of  an  army  which  will  have  a profound  re- 
action on  American  domestic  life,  because  as  a consequence  of  its  in- 
creased size  and  authority,  it  will  be  constantly  making  imperative 
demands  upon  the  civil  authorities  which  they  will  be  reluctant  to 
grant  and  which  will  raise  the  issue  between  civil  and  military 
control  over  American  policy.  These  are  prescisely  the  questions 
which  the  President  wished  to  avoid,  as  they  have  been  avoided  in 
the  past,  but  from  now  on  they  will  wax  increasingly  troublesome. 
The  new  army  could  not  be  made  serviceable,  without  becoming 
unsafe,  because  in  the  opinion  of  too  many  American  citizens,  a 
safe  army  meant  an  imperiled  country.  In  truth  there  was  no  way 
in  which  the  domestic  life  and  institutions  of  the  nation  could 
be  guaranteed  against  far-reaching  modifications  as  a consequence 
of  substituting  organized  preparedness  for  organized  unprepared- 
ness. An  efficient  new  military  and  naval  establishment  is  bound  in 
the  end  to  do  something  important  to  the  American  people,  and  the 
certainty  of  a drastic  result  should  be  recognized  in  advance.  Con- 
fident prophecies  are  being  made  as  to  what  this  drastic  result  will 
be.  Many  good  Americans  predict  that  our  democracy  will  be 
ruined  by  their  new  and  dangerous  servant.  Others  predict  with 
equal  confidence  that  a more  powerful  army  and  widespread  mili- 
tary training  is  necessary  not  merely  to  save  the  nation  from  its 
possible  foreign  enemies  but  to  preserve  it  from  its  domestic 
infirmities.  Neither  of  these  predictions  need  to  be  taken  too 
seriously.  They  are  the  expression  of  fears  and  hopes  rather 
than  a disinterested  estimate  of  the  action  of  social  forces.  Al- 
though drastic  result  will  certainly  follow,  what  that  result  will  be 
is  by  no  means  so  certain.  It  will  depend  less  upon  the  size  and 
organization  of  the  army  and  the  navy  than  upon  the  way  in  which 
the  nation  decides  to  use  them. 

At  present  the  American  people  have  not  made  up  their 


8 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  OKLAHOMA 


mind  how  they  will  use  their  new  army  and  navy,  and  anti- 
militarists  are  insisting  that  the  creation  of  the  larger  army  and 
navy  should  be  postponed  until  they  do.  I cannot  agree  with 
them.  We  shall  have  to  take  the  risk  of  preparing  first  and  of 
deciding  later  just  what  we  are  preparing  for.  To  have  refused 
to  prepare  would  under  the  circumstances  have  been  an  indication 
of  inertia  and  weakness.  To  have  begun  to  prepare  is  on  the 
whole  a symptom  of  self-confidence.  It  indicated  that  the  country 
is  not  afraid  to  plunge  forward  even  though  somewhat  blidndly 
and  to  risk  the  assumption  of  a perilous  and  costly  responsibility 
which  before  it  is  redeemed  may  diminish  many  prescriptive 
rights,  damage  many  vested  interests  and  perhaps  change  the 
whole  outlook  of  the  American  democracy. 

The  American  nation  needs  the  tonic  of  a serious  moral  adven- 
ture. It  has  been  too  safe,  too  comfortable,  too  complacent  and 
too  relaxed.  Its  besetting  weakness  is  the  prevalence  of  individual 
and  collective  irresponsibility,  based  on  the  expectation  of  ac- 
complishing without  effort.  Living  as  it  did  in  a favored  land 
which  was  not  exposed  to  attack  from  without  and  which  of- 
fered to  good  Americans  surpassing  opportunities  to  satisfy  their 
own  special  and  individual  purposes,  our  democracy  has  not  been 
required  to  pull  itself  together.  It  has  depended  for  its 
cohesion  upon  loyaltc’  to  an  achieved  and  essentially  complete  con- 
stitutional system,  and  upon  a suppositious  harmony  between  indi- 
vidual or  local,  and  public  or  national  interests.  Unlike  European 
countries,  it  could  afford  to  leave  the  satisfaction  of  many  public 
objects  to  the  results  of  an  accidental  concern  among  individuals, 
groups  of  individuals,  or  local  political  units.  It  has  been  reluc- 
tant to  create  powerful  political  or  economic  organs  for  the  ac- 
complishment of  its  national  purposes,  and  when  instruments  of 
this  kind  came  into  existence  as  the  result  of  automatic  and  poli- 
tical forces,  the  instinct  of  the  democracy  was  to  dissolve  rather 
than  to  discipline  its  unmanageable  servants.  It  has  not 
liked  the  responsibility  af  turning  such  potentially  dangerous  agents 
as  a centralized  administration,  an  authoritative  legislature,  an 
efficient  army  or  any  concentrated  embodiment  of  industrial  power 
to  beneficial  public  use. 

The  European  war  has  proved  sufficiently  the  impossibility  of 
seriously  preparing  for  a possible  war  without  calling  upon  the 
whole  industrial  system  for  assistance.  If  the  American  industrial 
system  is  not  prepared  to  render  that  assistance  promptly  and  com- 
pletely, the  country  would  be  unprepared  for  serious  military  or 
naval  operations — no  matter  how  well  its  soldiers  were  trained  and 


UNIVERSAL  MILITARY  TRAINING 


0 


equipped. 

Of  even  more  importance  to  adequate  preparedness  than  these 
measures  of  political,  financial  and  industrial  reorganization  is  an 
effective  method  of  securing  for  the  new  military  and  naval  pro- 
gram the  support  of  the  wage-earners.  In  the  event  of  a war  which 
involved  the  national  safety  they  could  be  counted  on  to  volunteer 
in  sufficient  numbers ; but  that  is  not  the  question.  Assuming  that 
the  United  States  is  to  have  an  army,  which  even  in  the  timics 
of  peace  will  require  of  an  increasing  proportion  of  the  wage- 
earners  of  the  country  a certain  share  of  their  time  and  labor,  how 
can  they  be  induced  to  give  what  is  needed?  It  is  the  answer  to 
this  question  which  will  arouse  in  the  near  future  the  most  lively 
controversy,  and  upon  the  way  it  is  answered  will  largely  depend 
the  reaction  of  a larger  military  and  naval  establishment  upon 
.Am.erican  dom.estic  institutions  and  life.  In  the  past  the  govern- 
ment has  relied  for  the  recruits  to  the  army  and  the  navy  upoii 
the  expedient  of  tempting  men  to  volunteer,  but  if  this  expedient 
is  to  succeed  in  the  future,  the  temptation  will  have  to  be  very 
much  increased.  It  is  doubtful  whether  the  new  army  can  be  re- 
cruited, save  at  an  excessive  cost.  For  this  and  for  many  other 
reasons  an  aggressive  and  insistent  element  in  public  opinion  is 
demanding  the  substitution  of  compulsion  for  the  volunteer  prin- 
ciple. 

The  agitation  for  compulsory  military  service  bears  parti- 
cularly hard  on  the  subject  under  discussion,  because  the  argu- 
ments in  favor  of  compulsion  are  derived  from  social  and  pobticil 
rather  than  military  sources.  It  is  not  pretended  that  the  nation 
needs  the  military  serivee  of  all  the  young  men  of  America;  !an 
it  is  claimed  that  the  young  men  of  America  need  the  benefit  of 
military  service.  Instead  of  as  at  present  paying  some  young  men 
to  enter  an  essentially  public  occupation,  they  wish  the  burden  an  1 
the  opportunity  of  the  cmploym.ent  to  be  imposed  on  all  alikg 
without  fear  and  without  favor.  That  is  the  way  really  to  demo- 
cratize the  American  arniy.  Universal  service  raises  American  citi- 
zens of  all  classes  and  sections,  if  not  of  both  sexes,  to  the  level  of 
an  irksome  common  obligation ; and  this  obligation  brings  with  it 
to  an  extent  which  political  and  social  obligations  do  not,  the  oc- 
casion for  com.mon  association.  The  experience  would  enable  the 
young  soldier  to  realize  how  far  he  is  a member  of  a community 
and  how  m.uch  fellowship  in  the  community  means.  It  is  tlie 
real  solution  of  the  ideal  in  an  armed  citizenry.  The  nation  would 
obtain  soldiers  who  were  citizens  and  citizens  who  were  soldiers. 

The  argument  of  those  Americans,  vrho  are  seeking  to  give  a 


10 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  OKLAHOMA 


positive  social  value  to  the  military  system  and  convert  it  into  a 
source  of  national  unity,  culminates  in  the  foregoing  contention. 
Instead  of  consdering  the  army  as  a troublesome  excresence  on 
American  life,  they  propose  to  work  it  into  the  very  fabric  of  the 
nation.  It  is  to  be  made  the  heroic  remedy  for  the  insidious  dis- 
ease of  national  incoherence.  By  being  universalized,  military 
service  is  converted  into  a most  effective  form  of  compulsory 
national  education.  American  citizens  will  be  pulled  together  by 
the  force  of  active  comradeship  in  common  labor  and  genuine 
sacrifices  for  the  national  welfare. 

The  idea  of  making  the  military  system  contribute  something 
of  positive  value  in  the  domestic  life  of  the  country  is  sound,  but 
it  breaks  down  when  worked  as  hard  as  it  is  by  the  advocates  of 
com.pulsory  service.  They  are  following  the  bad  example  of  the 
traditional  American  dem.ocrats  in  insisting  that  the  size  of  the 
military  establishmient  should  be  determined  by  its  expected  re- 
action on  American  domestic  life.  The  traditional  democrats  w^ere 
reluctant  to  let  the  nation  have  as  many  soldiers  or  as  much 
military  training  as  might  be  needed,  because  they  presupposed  a 
necessary  antagonism  between  demiocracy  and  military  prepara- 
tion. The  contem.porary  advocates  of  universal  service  seek  the 
enlistment  and  training  of  more  soldiers  than  are  needed,  because 
they  believe  that  the  .American  who  has  undergone  m litary  train- 
ing will  constitute  a better  rather  than  a w'orse  citizen.  Both 
of  them  are  falling  into  the  mistake  so  common  to  golf  players  of 
keeping  their  eye  too  mmeh  upon  the  hole  and  not  enough  upon 
the  ball.  The  former  have  more  fear  of  military  training  than 
they  have  confidence  in  democracy ; the  latter  have  more  confidence 
in  military  training  than  they  have  confidence  in  democracy.  Both 
need  to  understand  that  an  army  is  one  thing  and  a democracy  is 
another.  An  army  is  a delicate  and  dangerous  instrument  which 
may  be  called  upon  to  perform  the  terrible  work  of  killing  and 
submitting  to  being  killed  and  which  needs  to  be  adjusted  to  the 
probable  nature  and  amount  of  this  w^ork.  A democracy  is  a 
form  of  political  and  social  organization,  which,  because  it  fas- 
tens on  the  whole  people  ultim.ate  responsibility  for  the  public  wel- 
fare, depends  for  its  fulfillment  upon  the  ability  of  men  to  rise  to 
higher  opportunities.  The  two  are  not  divided  by  any  necessary 
incompatibility,  and  it  would  be  a timid  and  rudimentary  democracy 
which  tied  itself  to  a policy  of  mis-armament  merely  because  it  is 
afraid  to  let  enough  of  its  citizens  become  properly  trained  sol- 
diers. But  if  the  two  are  not  divided  by  an  incompatibility  neither 
are  they  tied  together  hy  mutual  dependence.  While  a democracy 


UNIVERSAL  MILITARY  TRAINING 


11 


may  obtain  incidental  educational  benefits  from  universal  military 
training,  only  an  impoverished  democracy  would  rely  upon  com- 
pulsory military  training  service  for  the  education  of  its  citizens 
in  the  essentials  of  citizenship.  The  American  army  will  never  be 
brought  into  wholesome  relations  with  the  American  democracy 
until  we  cease  to  consider  it  either  as  a bogey  or  as  a vehicle  of 
civic  grace.  It  is  primarily  a machine,  planned  and  prepared 
to  accomplish  some  desperately  important  and  extremely  hazardous 
practical  work. 

The  usual  explanation  that  the  United  States  is  preparing  only 
for  defense,  which  is  a policy  on  which  all  good  citizens  can  agree, 
merely  begs  the  question.  A nation  like  Switzerland  may  arm 
purely  for  defense,  because  a sm^all  nation  even  if  armed  to  the 
teeth  is  incapable  of  aggression,  and  because  it  cannot  have  an 
enemy  of  any  size,  which  would  not  be  large  enough  to  threaten  its 
independence ; but,  in  the  case  of  a wealthy,  populous  and  geo- 
graphically isolated  nation  like  the  United  States  no  sharp  line  can 
he  drawn  between  defensive  and  aggressive  armament.  As  has 
been  frequently  pointed  out,  the  new  army  and  navy  will  be  re- 
qu'red  to  defend  a policy  rather  than  merely  a coast  line.  If  the 
United  States  is  invaded  the  invasion  will  originate  not  in  a 
wanton  attack  from  a strong  military  and  naval  power,  but  in  a 
clash  with  a similar  power  over  a difference  of  opinion  about 
neutral  rights  at  sea,  the  Open  Door  in  China  or  the  Monroe  Doc-, 
trine  in  South  Amierica.  In  the  event  of  such  a quarrel  there  is 
really  little  difference  between  fighting  to  defend  a policy  and 
fighting  to  promote  it.  The  Monroe  Doctrine  and  the  Open  Door 
are  from  certain  points  of  view  aggressi\e  policies,  about  the 
meaning  and  justice  of  which  v/ide  differences  of  opinion  may  ex- 
ist both  in  this  and  inother  countries.  Hence  what  we  need  most 
of  all  to  understand  is  the  nature  and  scope  of  the  policies  in  the 
interest  of  which  we  shall  organize  an  efficient  and  dangerous  army 
and  navy.  Until  this  is  known  not  only  can  we  not  cauculate  how 
many  and  what  kind  of  sailors  and  soldiers  we  may  need  and 
what  sacrifices  the  American  people  m.ay  fairly  be  asked  to  make 
for  them,  but  we  shall  be  equally  at  a loss  to  estimate  the  moral 
and  political  reaction  of  the  military  preparations  upon  American 
domestic  life. 

Thus  the  dubious  aspect  of  the  existing  situation  does  not  con- 
sist in  the  fact  or  in  the  cost  of  preparedness  but  in  the  am- 
biguity of  its  underlying  purposes.  The  American  people  are  being 
asked  to  pay  heavily  in  labor  and  money  for  a new  army  and  navy 
as  a weapon  of  self-defence,  because  only  in  this  way  can  con- 


12 


thp:  university  of  Oklahoma 


tcntious  matters  be  avoided  and  a sufficiently  general  measure  of 
popular  support  be  frightened  into  existence.  Vet  there  is  a 
very  real  probably  that  the  new  army  and  navy  will  be  used 
chiefly  for  positive  and  for  aggressive  as  opposed  to  merely  de- 
fensive purposes.  These  positive  purposes  can  be  m.ade  in  my 
Opinion  even  more  justifiable  than  a negative  defensive  policy,  but 
their  value  and  meaning  is  obscured  because  they  are  not  frankly 
admitted,  fully  discussed  and  sufficiently  defined.  As  long  as 
lh<y  remain  ambiguous  and  obsucre,  they  create  and  encourage 
a dangerously  suspicious  and  evasive  attitude  towards  the  ques- 
tion of  preparedness  . The  socialists  are  already  declaring  that 
tile  new  army  and  navy  are  intended  as  the  instruments  of  im- 
I)erlalistic  exploitation  in  Mexico  and  Central  Amierica,  and  the 
accusation  cannot  be  answered  either  by  silence  or  abuse.  As  a 
matter  of  fact  if  the  soldiers  which  will  be  recruited  and  trained 
for  the  new  army  see  active  service  anywhere,  they  are  m.ore 
likely  to  see  it,  just  as  the  old  army  has,  outside  rather  than  inside 
the  United  States.  The  service  beyond  the  seas  may  be  susceptible 
of  complete  justification  as  a miatter  of  democratic  national  policy, 
but  it  cannot  be  justified  as  a matter  of  self-defense,  and  only 
gradually  will  it  be  met  with  the  same  general  approval  and  sup- 
port its  would  an  exclusively  defensive  service. 

So  we  get  back  to  tlie  consideration  which  has  been  implicit 
in  this  whole  discussion.  The  probable  reaction  of  military  pre- 
paredness upon  America  domestic  life  and  institutions  will  be  de- 
termnned  finally  by  the  ability  of  the  nation  to  assimilate  the 
dangerous,  unm.anageable  and  exciting  intruder  into  its  moral  or- 
ganization. The  work  of  assimilation  depends  in  part  upon  our 
ability  to  create  an  armiy  and  a navy  whose  officers  and  enlisted  men 
do  not  cease  to  participate  in  the  civilian  occupations  and  interests, 
yet  who  at  the  same  time  are  not  prevented  by  civilian  meddling 
from  doing  thoroughly  well  their  own  special  work.  But  it  de- 
pends still  more  upon  the  national  policy  of  which  the  new  army 
and  navy  will  be  the  chief  instrument.  In  creating  such  an  instru- 
ment the  Am.erican  nation  is  not  submitting  itself  passively  to  the 
benign  influence  of  a militaristic  Saint  Michael.  Neither  is  it  sub- 
mitting itself  passively  to  the  malign  influence  of  a militaristic 
dragon.  Neither  is  it  pursu'ng  a course  which  like  the  menace  in 
the  army  and  the  navy  after  the  Spanish  American  w^ar,  will  leave 
its  domestic  life  and  institutions  practically  unchanged.  What  it 
is  doing  is  to  adopt  a new  and  hazardous  course,  which  in  case  it  is 
,to  be  successfully  carried  through  will  require  certain  radical 
changes  in  the  intellectual  and  normal  make-up  of  the  American 


UNIVERSAL  MILITARY  TRAINING 


L5 

(leir.ocrac'y. 

The  good  American  shouhl  conseou  iu\v  ne'ihcr  denounce  n t 
glorify  military  preparedness.  He  sirould  rather  do  what  he  can  to 
make  the  country  equal  to  its  newly  assumed  respem.sihilitics.  Tlie 
probability  is  that  the  effect  of  the  adventure  will  l)e  disastrou.s  un- 
less the  American  people  can  im.prove  their  polit’eal  and  economic 
organization,  socialize  their  industries  and  convert  their  educational 
system,  into  a source  of  democratic  citizensh’]).  Efficient  and  ela- 
borate military  preparations  will  neither  prevent  us  from  making 
these  iirprovcmicnts  nor  assure  their  attainment.  They  must  be 
o!)tained,  if  at  all,  em  their  own  merits  and  by  a sufficient  concentra- 
tion of  purpose  and  eftVrt  upon  special  job.s,  each  in  their  turn. 
What  the  work  of  military  preparation  inay  do  is  to  help  the  Ameri- 
can people  obtain  the  habit  of  concentrated  attention  upon  their 
own  collective  tasks.  As  a result  of  an  increase  in  conccntratir)n 
they  should  be  able  to  rise  m.orc  completely  both  to  their  obliga- 
tions and  opportunities,  but  no  such  result  necessarily  fedlows.  It 
all  depends  upon  the  national  policies,  domestic  and  foreign,  in 
the  interest  of  which  the  fruits  of  concentration  are  used. 

The  decision  to  prepare,  consequently,  decided  very  little.  The 
larger  army  and  navy  will  of  itself  bring  neither  ruin  nor  re- 
generation to  the  American  people.  It  will  not  even  bring  ad- 
ditional security,  for  security  is  a matter  of  comparative  rather 
than  actual  armament.  By  deciding  to  prepare  the  American' nation 
has  issued  a challenge  to  itself  to  use  more  foresight,  more  in- 
telligence, and  more  purpose  in  the  mianagement  of  its  affairs.  Its 
more  powerful  army  and  navy  like  its  more  energetic  and  efficient 
government  must  be  made  the  organ  of  a policy,  which  will  con- 
sciously and  tenaciously  make  for  individual  and  social  betterment. 
Such  a policy  has  not  yet  been  completely  formulated,  but  the  ex- 
periments and  the  discussions  of  the  past  year  have  indicated 
the  direction  in  which  it  must  be  sought.  All  Americans  who  wish 
the  national  military  and  naval  establishment  to  be  a boon  rather 
than  a curse  to  their  country  should  turn  their  attention  to  the 
business  of  formulating  it.  The  foreign  policy  of  a democracy  can 
be  democratized  only  as  a result  of  a sufficient  measure  of  popular 
understanding  and  goodwill ; and  upon  the  democratizing  of 
American  foreign  policy  will  depend  the  democratizing  of  its  most 
dangerous  organ, — a large  and  powerful  military  and  naval  estab- 
lishment. 


14 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  OKLAHOMA 


THE  DEMOCRACY  OF  UNIVERSAL  MILITARY 
SERVICE 

BY  FRANKLIN  H,  GIDDINGS,  LL.  D.. 

Professor  of  Sociology  and  History  of  Civilization,  Columbia 

University 

This  topic  is  resolvable  into  propositions  of  the  indispen- 
sable science  of  guess  work.  There  is  no  way  of  knowing 
what  the  effect  of  a large  military  and  naval  establishment  on 
our  domestic  institutions  and  policy  will  be.  The  factors  of 
causation  are  many,  and  the  contngencies  are  uncertain.  Never- 
theless, we  must  guess  as  well  as  we  can.  Marvellous  as 
the  achievements  of  experimental  science  have  been,  and  great 
as  the  accumulations  of  verified  knowledge  are,  mankind  yet 
goes  on  its  daily  way,  in  matters  social  and  political,  by  guess- 
ing. It  becomes  important,  therefore,  to  guess  well.  For 
practical  purposes  the  difference  between  good  guessing  and 
bad  guessing  is  incalcuable.  The  social  and  political  sciences 
are  attempts  to  establish  principles  and  methods  of  good  guess- 
ing, in  these  domains. 

The  fundamental  principles  of  good  guessing  are  no  other 
than  those  of  scientific  method  in  general  and  perhaps  this  fact 
offers  as  good  a reason  as  any  that  could  be  found  in  justifica- 
tion of  our  temerity  in  speaking  of  social  and  political  sciences. 
A careful  discrimination  of  facts,  qualities,  and  kinds  of  things, 
one  from  another,  is  the  first  requirement.  Painstaking  mea- 
surement, or  estimate,  of  qualities  is  the  second  requirement. 
In  attempting  to  guess  what  the  effect  of  a large  military  and 
naval  establishment  upon  our  domestic  institutions  and  policy 
will  be,  we  shall  plunge  wildly  unless  we  keep  these  requisites 
of  method  continually  in  mind. 

The  area  of  Europe,  which  its  25,000,000  to  30,000,000  sold- 
iers are  expected  to  defend  or  to  devastate,  as  occasion  arises, 
is  3,754,282  square  miles.  The  area  of  the  United  States,  plus 
the  area  of  Alaska  and  the  area  of  our  island  possessions,  is 
3,743,306  square  miles,  or  only  10,979  square  miles  less  than 
the  total  area  of  Europe. 

If  We  had  a peace-footing  army  of  one  million  men  and 
trained  reserves  of  five  million  men,  we  should  have  for  the 
protection  of  our  continental  area,  Alaska,  and  island  possess- 
ions, less  than  one  fifth  of  the  military  establishment  main- 
tained upon  the  equal  area  of  Europe;  Japan  and  all  other  na- 
tions being  left  out  of  the  reckoning.  It  is  permissible  to  any 
free  born  American  to  call  such  a measure  of  prepardness  “mill- 


UNIVERSAL  MILITARY  TRAINING 


15 


tarism”  if  he  wants  to.  There  are  intellects,  here  and  there, 
that  function  that  way. 

So  I offer  my  first  contribution  to  our  guessing  match 
upon  the  probable  effect  of  a large  military  establishment  in 
the  United  States.  My  guess  is  that  a peace-footing  army  of 
one  million  men,  and  a trained  reserve  force  of  five  million 
more  men  w’ould  have,  so  far  as  any  reaction  of  mere  magni- 
tude is  concerned,  absolutely  no  effect  whatever  upon  our 
American  domestic  life.  It  would  be  neither  more  or  less 
appreciable  than  a police  force  of  15,000  men  in  this  city  of 
F’hiladelphia,  with  its  population  of  more  than  one  million  and 
a half  inhabitants. 

The  magnitude,  however,  of  a military  establishment  is 
by  no  means  the  only  or  the  most  important  factor  to  be 
regarded  when  forecasting  its  probable  reactions.  Far  more 
important  than  any  dimensions  that  we  are  likely  to  have  to 
consider,  is  the  character  or  type  of  the  army  that  we  might 
create  in  the  United  States.  Like  England  we  have  been,  and 
are  now,  committed  to  a hired  or  professional  army  which,  next 
after  monarchy  and  hereditary  rank,  is  the  most  undemocratic 
thing  that  man  has  so  far  invented.  A hired  army  does  not 
have  to  be  large  to  establish  undemocratic  standards  and  to 
cause  mischievous  irritation.  When  the  European  war  is 
over,  the  class  struggle  will  break  forth  afresh,  with  fourfold 
energ3^.  I think  that  we  may  confidently  anticipate  that  the 
forces  of  organized  labor  and  of  socialism  will  actively  oppose 
professional  armies.  Rightly  or  wrongly,  they  will  insist 
that  a professional  army  may,  at  any  time,  be  used  by  a domi- 
nant capitalism  to  quell  strikes  and  to  put  down  an  industrial 
revolution. 

International  so''’.alism,  to  its  honor,  is  opposed  to  all 
preventable  war,  bul  it  does  not  feel  about  universal  military 
service  as  it  feels  about  a hired  and  professional  army.  Uni- 
versal military  training  puts  all  citizens  on  the  same  footing. 
The  proletarian,  like  the  man  who  hires  him,  is  taught  the 
manual  of  arms,  and,  in  the  event  of  war,  the  man  who  hires 
him  is  equally  liable  V'ith  other  men  to  take  his  chance  in  the 
trenches. 

Many  of  you  here  present  doubtless  remember,  as  I do, 
the  bitterness  engendered  by  that  form  of  conscription  to 
which  the  federal  government  resorted  to  in  our  Civil  War.  My 
father  was  a minister  ^f  a Congregational  church  in  a country 
village,  and  I vividl"  recall  my  impressions  of  scenes  in 


16 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  OKLAHOMA 


our  home  when  women  of  ’humble  circumstances  came  for  a 
word  of  comfort,  holding  in  trembling  hands  the  tear-blotted 
scrap  of  paper  that  told  of  the  death  of  husband  or  son,  and. 
child  as  I was,  I felt  their  smarting  sense  of  injustice  that  their 
loved  ones  had  to  go  to  the  battle  field  while  the  relatively 
well-to-do  manufacturer  and  the  merchant  could  buy  sub- 
stitutes. I do  not  need  to  argue,  for  you  all  know,  that  the 
worst  of  England’s  troubles  in  the  present  war  have  been 
directly  attributable  to  her  initial  reliance  upon  an  inadequate 
professional  army,  helped  out  by  volunteers;  while  the  superb 
democratic  solidarity  of  France  is  attributable  to  the  equality 
and  justice  of  a universal  training  requirement,  which  puts  all 
men  of  high  or  low  degrees  on  the  same  footing  in  the  face  of 
suffering  and  fate. 

So  I make  my  second  guess,  which  is  that  if  we  create  a hir- 
ed army  of  more  than  half  a million  men,  and  do  not  back  it 
up  by  some  form  of  universal  military  training  and  require- 
ment, we  shall  engender  irritation  and  distrust;  we  shall  un- 
necessarily intensify  the  class  struggle;  and  we  shall  disin- 
tegrate such  democratic  solidarity  as  we  yet  enjoy.  Whereas, 
if  we  follow  the  examples  of  Switzerland  and  of  France;  re- 
cognize the  responsibility  of  every  able  bodied  citizen  for  the 
defense  of  his  country;  give  every  man  a good,  but  not  to© 
exacting  military  training,  we  shall  inspire  all  citizens  with  the 
conviction  that  our  institutions  are  founded  in  justice  and 
duty,  and  shall  thereby  invigorate  our  democracy. 

These  possible  reactions  of  a larger  military  establishment 
are,  I conceive,  the  most  important  ones  to  take  account  of. 
There  are  others' not  to  be  ignored.  I will  content  myself 
with  a brief  consideration  of  two. 

It  is  . generally  acknowledged  by  unprejudiced  persons  that 
military  training  may  have  an  educational  value.  I count  my- 
self fortunate  that  in  my  college  days  I enjoyed  such  training 
for  a time,  under  the  instruction  of  Captain,  afterwards  Gen- 
eral, Thomas  Ward  of  the  Regular  Army.  I learned  many  val- 
uable things,  that,  as  it  turned  out,  I should  have  had  no  other 
opportunity  in  my  life,  to  learn,  and  that  the  whole  have  con- 
tributed to  my  physical  health,  my  sense  of  social  duty,  and 
my  comprehension  of  the  importance  of  efficiency  in  team 
work.  Incidentally  I learned,  I think,  the  moral  no  less 
than  the  marching  distinction  between  guiding  right  and  guid- 
ing left,  and  I have  since  been  trying  to  “guide  right.” 

It  is  urged  by  men  whose  intelligence  and  distinction 


UNIVERSAL  MILITARY  TRAINING 


17 


carry  great  weight  that  all  of  the  educational  advantages  of 
military  discipline  may  and  should  be  obtained  through  other 
means.  Cannot  setting  up  exercises,  cooperative  activity, 
accuracy,  regular  habits,  and  all  the  rest  be  taught  apart  from 
their  associations  with  war?  Undoubtedly  they  might  be, 
and  they  should  be.  Nevertheless,  they  are  not,  in  our  schools 
or  in  our  colleges.  After  lifelong  association  with  educational 
interests,  I regret  to  have  to  say  that  I see  very  little  reason 
to  expect  that  these  disciplines  will  be  effectively  developed  in 
America  unless  the  demand  for  them  have  come  from  the  same 
source  that  has  demanded  and  obtained  them  in  continental 
Europe  and  in  Australia.  It  is  a thing  one  would  rather  not 
say,  but  is  is  true;  we  are  a loose-minded  and  a loose  manner- 
ed people.  Money  making,  and  fads  invented  by  lunatics  are 
the  only  things  we  take  seriously.  I share  the  conviction 
which  has  been  growing  in  manj'-  minds,  that  this  deplorable 
state  of  mind,  and  of  behavior  is  in  no  small  measure  the 
consequence  of  our  fatuous  custom  of  letting  our  young  people 
“go  on  the  loose,”  instead  of  holding  them  to  tasks,  duties, 
discipline,  and  achievement. 

As  a fact  of  experience  it  seems  not  to  be  true  that  the 
average  man  will  do  the  things  that  he  should  do  merely  be- 
cause they  are  expedient  and  right.  He  does  them  under 
economic  or  social  pressure.  Economic  pressure  in  the 
United  States  by  comparison  with  economic  pressure  in  the 
old  world,  has  been  relatively  light;  and  our  social  pressure 
is  formless  and  relatively  inefficient  because,  in  cutting  loose 
from  the  aristocratic  traditions  and  conventions  of  an  older 
world  community  we  have,  at  the  same  time,  cut  loose  fropi 
a priceless  heritage  of  human  wisdom,  in  the  vain  thought  that 
the  laws  of  the  universe  are  suspended  in  the  Western  Hemi- 
sphere. 

Among  the  precepts  of  wisdom  that  we  have  been  trying 
desperately  to  ignore  is  the  truth  that  human  beings  do  not  do 
things  for  their  health,  bodily  or  spiritual  until  their  health 
is  gone.  They  do  things  in  the  day’s  work  because  they 
have  to;  they  do  things  for  fun  because  they  like  to.  The 
well-set-up  “cop.”  the  fireman,  the  middy,  and  the  soldier,  do 
not  take  their  exercises  and  their  drills  because  they  have 
reasoned  that  such  exertions  are  good  for  them;  they  take  them 
under  social  pressure,  because  they  have  to,  on  penalty  of  los- 
ing their  jobs. 

Here  we  have  the  crux  of  the  whole  question  of  the  edu- 


18 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  OKLAHOMA 


cational  value  of  military  training.  Education  as  education, 
school  boys  and  college  boys  do  not  take  seriously  in  this 
country,  and  they  will  not  take  it  seriously  until  they  feel  a 
social  pressure  more  effectively  organized  than  any  we  now 
have.  Young  men  do  take  military  training  seriously,  they 
are  set  up  and  disciplined  by  it  because  they  feel  that  it  is 
linked  to  tremendous  realities,  because  it  is  a recognition  of 
the  solemn  fact  that  nations  have  been  obliged  to  repel  in- 
vasion and  put  down  insurrection,  and  that  the  necessity  may 
arise  again.  It  is  associated  with  convictions  of  obligation, 
with  love  of  country,  with  loyalty,  and  obedience. 

Yes,  with  obedience.  I am  well  aware  that  one  half  at 
least  of  that  opposition  to  preparedness  which  parades  as 
pacifism  is  neither  more  nor  less  than  an  anarchistic  re- 
volt against  the  teaching  of  obedience.  I should  be  in  sympathy 
with  it  if  obedience  were  now,  as  in  other  days  it  was,  sub- 
mission to  irresponsible  power  or  authority.  But  obedience 
today,  in  America  at  least,  as  in  Switzerland  and  in  France,  is 
another  thing.  It  is  a loyal  and  rational  acquiescence  in  the 
general  will;  it  is  the  act  of  being  republican;  it  is  the  act  of 
being  democratic  as  distinguished  from  the  verbal  democracy 
of  the  humbug  and  the  blatherskite.  And  this  democracy  of 
act,  of  loyal  obedience  to  the  general  will,  of  willing  sacrifice 
for  the  general  good,  is  the  republicanism  that  we  need;  it 
is  the  democracy  that  we  must  have  if  we  are  to  be  a nation 
respecting  ourselves,  and  worthy  of  the  world’s  respect. 

Upon  the  second  of  the  possible  minor  reactions  of  a larger 
military  establishment  than  we  have  hitherto  had  in  the  United 
States,  I shall  be  still  more  brief.  Is  there  danger  that  by 
recognizing  the  importance  of  general  military  training,  and 
by  adopting  it,  we  shall  become  interested  in  miltary  operations 
for  their  own  sake,  and  insensitive  to  the  dreadfulness  of 
war?  Granting  that  the  maintenance  of  an  adequate  army 
of  defense,  and  a powerful  navy  would  not  in  itself  be  mili- 
tarism, should  we,  nevertheless,  by  creating  such  establish- 
ments be  entering  upon  a perilous  course  leading  to  militarism 
in  the  end?  My  answer  to  this  question  is  like  the  answers 
that  I have  given  to  the  questions  already  considered:  I call 
your  attention  to  certain  facts  and  discriminations.  Where, 
in  all  human  history,  do  you  find  that  republican  and  demo- 
cratic populations  have  become  militaristic?  Where,  in  all 
human  history,  do  you  find  monarchies  that  have  not  become, 
or  tended  to  become  militaristic?  Militarism  is  not  a simple 


UNIVERSAL  MILITARY  TRAINING 


19 


phenomenon;  it  is  a highly  complex  product  of  many  factors 
intricately  combined.  Monarchism  harks  back  to  ancient  days, 
to  reactionary  instincts;  it  is  intrenched  in  privilege;  it  resists 
change.  But  mankind  progresses.  Progress  endangers  mon- 
archy; it  threatens  it  with  overthrow.  Monarchism  as  such 
cares  nothing  for  the  populace,  except  as  a base  of  supply  and  a 
fighting  force.  Monarchy  is  excited  by  progress;  it  casts  about 
for  policies  to  turn  progress  to  its  own  account;  militarism  is 
the  sum  of*  the  policies  that  it  adopts.  Militarism  is,  in  fine, 
a policy  of  monarchy  excited  by  progress.  Democracy  has 
nothing  to  gain  by  aggressive  w’ar — but  everything  to  lose. 
Both  instinctively  and  rationally  democracies  realize  that  such 
is  the  truth.  Their  danger  lies  not  at  all  in  a possible  drift 
toward  militarism;  it  lies  rather  in  a failure  to  grasp  the  com- 
plexities of  international  interests  and  relations  as  they  stand 
in  the  world  today;  in  a failure  to  realize  that  good  behavior 
by  the  well-intentioned  is  no  protection  against  aggression  by 
the  ruthless.  The  danger  of  republics  and  democracies  lies 
in  the  immense  difficulty  of  arousing  democratic  masses  to 
an  appreciation  of  the  importance  of  forecast,  of  preparation, 
of  timely  organization,  of  the  development  of  efficiency  to 
meet  contingencies  not  only  possible  but,  in  the  imperfect  and 
by  no  means  righteous  world  of  today,  in  the  highest  degree 
probable. 

What  I have  said  about  the  probable  reactions  of  a 
larger  military  establishment  on  land  applies,  I think,  in  the 
main  to  the  question  of  the  probable  effect  upon  our  domestic 
life  and  institutions  of  a large  naval  establishment.  We  may 
safely  assume  that  the  United  States  does  not  need  the  largest 
navy  in  the  world,  or  even  a navy  as  large  as  that  of  Great 
Britain.  But  we  have  long  lines  of  coasts  to  protect,  and  the 
outlying  possessions  of  Alaska  and  our  Pacific  Islands.  By 
creating  a navy  second  to  that  of  Great  Britain,  and  larger 
than  any  other,  we  should  merely  measure  our  naval  strength 
according  to  the  amount  of  work  that  it  may  be  called  upon 
to  perform.  And  I offer  as  my  final  guess  in  this  discussion 
that  neither  individual  nor  nation  can  undermine  character  or 
endanger  free  institutions  by  foresight  of  events,  evidence, 
provision  of  applicances,  and  discipline  of  strength  according 
to  the  measure  of  responsibility  and  of  obligation.  It  w'as  not 
an  alarmist  who  said:  “He  that  provideth  not  for  his  own.  is 
worse  than  an  infidel.” 


20 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  OKLAHOMA 


UNIVERSAL  MILITARY  SERVICE  AND  DEMOCRACY 

By  George  Nasmyth,  Ph.  D.,  author  of  “Social  Progress  and  the 
Darwinian  Theory;  A Study  of  Force  as  a Factor  in 
Human  Relations.” 

If  any  person  had  predicted  two  years  ago  that  the  people 
of  America  would  be  seriously  discussing  the  adoption  of  universal 
military  service  in  1917,  he  would  have  been  looked  upon  as  a 
visionary.  Put  since  the  outbreak  of  the  war  in  Europe,  the  rising 
tide  of  reaction  which  resulted  from  the  international  reign  of 
terror;  the  increasing,  power  of  militarism  in  the  world;  and  the 
great  preparedness  campaign  which  was  carried  to  a successful  con- 
clusion in  1915  and  1916,  have  led  step  by  step,  to  an  increasing 
agitation  for  universal  m.ilitary  service,  as  an  essential  part  of  the 
system  of  national  defense. 

The  advocates  of  universal  military  service  are  not  limited  to 
military  officers  like  General  Leonard  A.  Wood  or  to  i)artisans  of  a 
"big  stick”  policy  in  dealing  with  other  nations,  like  Colonel  Roose- 
velt. The  grem'ing  importance  of  the  subject  is  witnessed  by  the 
recent  accession  to  their  ranks  of  President  Emeritus  Charles  W. 
Eliot,  widely  known  as  a protagonist  of  democracy,  and  of  Prof. 
Ralph  Barton  Perry,  who  has  attempted  to  show  that  democracy 
has  nothing  to  fear  from  universal  military  service. 

Moreover,  laws  have  actually  been  passed  in  the  closing  hours  of 
the  session  of  the  legislature  in  New  York  State  providing  for 
military  training  in  the  high  school  and  universal  military  service 
for  all  young  men  between  the  ages  of  18  and  21.  Finally  the 
national  defense  act  passed  by  the  United  States  Congress  in  July, 
1916,  gives  to  the  military  authorities  the  power  to  “draft”  men 
into  the  army  whenever  voluntary  enlistments  shall  be  insufficient, 
so  that  universal  military  service  or  conscription,  to  use  a more 
convenient  term  for  the  same  idea,  has  been  established  as  a legal 
principle  in  the  Empire  State  and  in  the  nation. 

The  fact  that  these  laws  were  passed  in  the  closing  hours  of 
legislature  sessions,  without  adequate  discussion  and  without  com- 
plete understanding  on  the  part  of  the  people  on  the  issues  in- 
volved, makes  it  inevitable  that  the  debate  shall  be  re-opened  in 
the  near  future.  The  principle  at  issue  is  fundamental,  in  a democ-  \ 
racy,  and  the  most  widespread  discusson  of  the  subject  should  be^ 
welcomed  by  all  who  believe  in  the  power  of  an  enlightened  public 
opinion  to  decide  rightly  on  fundamental  principles. 

Universal  Military  Service  and  Preparedness 

The  case  for  universal  military  service  rests  on  entirely  dif- 


UNIVERSAL  MILITARY  TRAINING 


21 


fercnt  grounds  than  does  the  general  case  for  preparedness.  If 
vve  did  not  have  our  other  five  lines  of  national  defense  which 
protect  us  from  any  attack  from  European  or  Asiatic  powers, 
there  might  be  some  justification  in  this  universal  military  service 
in  America.  But  with  two  oceans,  one  3000  and  the  other  5000 
miles  in  width ; the  navy,  the  second  largest  in  the  world ; sub- 
marines, which  make  the  transport  of  large  bodies  of  troops 
across  great  distances  a most  hazardous  undertaking ; automatic 
and  electric  contact  mines  and  coast  fortifications,  such  as  have 
made  it  impossible  for  the  Allies  successfully  to  land  troops  on  the 
shores  of  Germany  or  even  Turkey,  even  when  the  Allies  were 
backed  by  a naval  force  three  or  four  times  greater  than  that  of 
the  Central  European  Powers — with  all  these  first  lines  of  defense, 
not  even  the  most  fearful  and  extreme  of  our  militarists  pretend 
that  an  army  of  seven  to  ten  million  men,  which  the  system  of 
universal  military  service  would  give  us  after  a few  years  of 
building  up  reserves  who  had  passed  through  the  military  machine, 
would  be  necessary  to  repel  an  actual  invasion  on  American  soil, 
IN'cn  Roosevelt  docs  not  demand  an  army  of  more  than  250,0(X) 
men  and  a reserve  army  of  400,000  men  to  meet  his  requirements 
for  an  “adequate”  national  defense,  and  no  one  has  seriously  urged 
that  our  preparedness  needs  require  an  army  of  universal  service 
proportions. 

But  the  volunteer  system  will  fail,  it  is  argued.  Even  the 
standing  arm.y  of  250,000  men  and  the  militia  of  400,000  provided 
for  in  the  national  defense  act  cannot  be  raised  by  the  voluntary 
method. 

An  Army  of  Social  Service 

If  this  force  is  needed,  it  can  be  raised  by  the  right  kind  of  an 
appeal  to  the  American  people.  This  involves  a fundamental  trans- 
formation of  an  army  from  its  old-world  character  of  a machine 
trained  solely  for  wholesale  murder,  to  a new  world  army  of 
social  service.  An  army  of  labor  trained  in  the  work  of  refore- 
station, of  building  great  highways,  instructed  in  methods  of  camp 
sanitation  and  effective  cooperation;  from  which  every  man  would 
come  out  a more  useful  member  of  society  and  a more  productive 
economic  unit,  would  make  a far  different  appeal  to  American 
young  men  than  the  standing  armiy  on  the  present  system,  or  even 
a National  Guard  of  the  socially  elite.  With  this  employment  in 
useful  production  should  go  adequate  compensation,  just  as  there 
goes  adequate  compensation  for  police  work,  for  the  work  of  fire- 
men and  life-savers.  Under  a really  democratic  system  of  social 
service  such  as  this,  tliere  will  be  no  difficulty  in  finding  all  the 


22 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  OKLAHOMA 


men  that  are  needed,  without  resort  to  conscription. 

But  since  the  case  which  can  be  made  out  for  compulsory  ser- 
vice is  so  weak  from  the  point  of  view  of  military  necessity,  its 
advocates  fall  back  on  other  arguments ; it  will  unify  the  nation ; 
it  will  increase  patriotism ; it  wdll  form  greatly  needed  habits  of 
obedience  and  discipline.  These  arguments  constitute,  in  brief,  the 
case  for  conscription,  around  which  the  great  debate  will  rage, 
and  they  are  so  important  that  they  should  be  subjected  to  the  most 
searching  analysis. 

Democracy 

Does  universal  military  service  involve  equal  sacrifice  on  the 
part  of  rich  and  poor  alike?  If  both  are  killed,  of  course,  both  have 
made  the  last  sacrifice,  and  so  far  as  their  individual  live.s 
are  concerned,  it  is  equal.  But  for  the  families  of  the  two  men 
the  difference  is  very  great.  For  the  family  of  the  poor  man,  the 
loss  of  the  breadwinner  means  that  the  widow  must  go  out  to 
work,  that  the  children  must  be  deprived  of  an  opportunity  for  edu- 
cation, that  their  whole  lives  must  be  limited  because  they  did  not 
have  the  opportunities  they  would  have  had  if  their  father  had  lived. 
For  the  rich  man,  on  the  contrary,  no  such  sacrifice  on  the  part  of 
his  family  is  involved.  His  wife  in  not  compelled  to  go  out  and 
work,  his  children  are  not  deprived  of  the  opportunity  of  receiving 
a liberal  education.  If. a conscription  of  ivealth  were  advocated  as 
a companion  measure  to  a conscription  of  lives,  there  might  be 
some  justification  for  the  argument  on  a basis  of  democracy.  But 
a conscription  of  lives  alone,  such  as  is  advocated  by  the  believers 
in  universal  military  service',  is  fundamentally  unjust,  if  the 
family,  instead  of  the  individual,  is  considered  as  the  real  unit 
and  the  foundation  of  the  nation’s  life. 

Even  if  the  sacrifice  of  life  is  not  involved,  the  sacrifice  of  time 
required  for  universal  military  service  imposes  an  unequal  burden 
upon  the  rich  and  poor.  For  the  rich  man,  Plattsburg  is  an  en- 
joyable vacation,  and  a longer  period  of  military  service  would  not 
be  any  great  hardship,  but  for  the  poor  man  it  means  a definite 
interruption  of  his  economic  life,  the  stopping  of  his  earnings,  a 
postponement  of  the  time  when  he  can  afford  to  marry,  an  inter- 
ruption of  his  difficult  task  of  getting  foothold  in  his  trade  or  small 
business.  In  Germany,  it  is  estimated  that  the  economic  loss  in- 
volved by  taking  a young  man  from  the  farm,  for  example,  is 
equivalent  to  about  $5C0  a year,  and  the  father  has  to  hire  Polish 
or  Italian  laborers  to  take  the  place  of  the  son  who  goes  to  serve 
for  two  years  in  the  Kaiser’s  army,  but  for  the  rich  man,  military 
service  offers  a career,  an  entrance  to  the  ranks  of  soicety,  the 


UNIVERSAL  MILITARY  TRAINING 


23 


opening  of  positions  in*  the  government  service  and  educational 
advantages  of  technical  training  in  the  officers’  college.  No  element 
of  equality  of  sacrifice  can  be  discovered  in  the  two  cases. 

Those  who  believe  that  class  distinctions  can  be  broken  down 
and  democracy  created  by  regimenting  men  into  masses  and  forcing 
them  to  drill  together,  have  missed  the  central  idea  of  democracy 
which  is  based  on  the  principle  of  voluntary  cooperation,  of  equality 
of  opportunity,  and  the  abolition  of  caste  privileges.  Those  who 
believe  that  dem.ocracy  can  be  imposed  from  without  by  force  and 
point  to  the  examples  of  France  and  Switzerland,  should  analyze 
the  condition  in  those  countries  more  deeply.  As  soon  as  we 
penetrate  below  the  surface,  we  find  in  each  of  them  a great  con- 
flict between  the  forces  of  militarism  and  democracy.  This  con- 
flict rages  in  all  countries  where  universal  military  service  is 
established,  and  it  has  been  revealed  in  all  its  bitterness  by  the 
vivid,  lightning  flashes  of  the  Dreyfus  affair  in  France,  the 
Zabern  incident  in  Germany,  and  the  Ulster  crisis  in  the  British 
Army — all  parallel  instances  of  successful  struggles  for  the  sup- 
remacy of  the  military  over  the  civil  powers  of  governm.ent.  In 
France  the  revanche  movement  which  brought  al)out  the  Russo- 
French  Alliance,  the  three  year  conscription  law  of  1912,  and  the 
outcome  of  the  Morocco  crisis  of  1911,  all  represented  victories  of 
the  military  caste  over  the  forces  of  democracy  and  the  popular 
government. 

Switzerland  has  not  had  an  aggressive  militarism  of  the  Pan- 
Germ.an  type,  it  is  true,  but  this  is  not  due  to  any  lack  of  desire 
on  the  part  of  the  Swiss  military  officers  who  are  like  military 
officers  the  world  over.  It  has  been  due  to  the  fact  that  Switzer- 
land is  a small  country  and  any  propaganda  for  a career  of 
“national  destiny”,  or  the  conquest  of  the  world  would  render  its 
advocates  ludicrous.  The  military  spirit,  hov^ever,  and  its  funda- 
mental opposition  to  democracy  is  essentially  the  same  in  Swit- 
zerland as  in  Germ.any  or  France,  as  is  witnessed,  for  example,  by 
the  testimony  of  Swiss  Social  Democrats  at  the  International 
Socalist  Congress  in  Stuttgart  and  other  centers. 

Everywhere  militarism  has  been  the  most  formidable  enemy  of 
democracy.  For  every  million  soldiers  you  must  have  at  least 
30,000  officers,  and  these  30,0C0  officers  must  make  the  military  pro- 
fession their  life  work.  They  must  cultivate  an  iron  will  and  a 
.spirit  of  domination  as  essential  elements  of  success,  and  neces- 
sarily they  chafe  with  impatience  at  the  discussions  and  restraints 
of  democracy  and  the  civil  powers  of  government.  Altogether 
they  constitute  a source  of  ever  present  danger  to  the  peace  of  a 


24 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  OKLAHOMA 


nation  which  is  powerful  enough  to  be  a menace  to  the  world. 

The  testimony  of  representative  British  and  German  state- 
men — Viscount  Bryce,  former  Ambassador  to  America,  and  of 
Bismarck  himself,  is  illumunating  in  this  connection. 

The  reason  why  we  have  had  one  hundred  years  of  peace  in 
the  English  speaking  world,  according  to  Viscount  Bryce,  is  be- 
cause we  have  had  so  little  militarism  in  America  in  the  past.  In 
the  introduction  to  Prof.  Dunning’s  book  on  “The  British  Empire 
and  the  United  States”,  Bryce  says  the  during  a number  of  years 
the  American  masses  would  not  have  opposed  war  with  England 

but  “fortunately the  country  was  free  from  a 

pernicious  military  caste  which  v/orked  such  frightful  evil  in 
Europe,  being  indeed  driven  to  desire  opportunities  for  practising 
the  work  for  which  the  profession  exists.” 

This  is  the  testimony  of  a British  statesman.  On  the  other 
hand  Bismarck  in  his  “Reflections  and  Reminiscences,”  Chapter 
XXH,  tells  us  definitely  how  the  Prussian  militarists  tried  to  push 
him  into  war,  how  he  used  this  militarist  pressure  to  throw  the 
country  into  war  with  Austria  in  1866  and  with  France  in  1870. 
and  how  he  had  to  resist  the  powerful  militarist  pressure  towards 
war  in  1867,  in  1875  and  on  other  occasions.  Bismarck  says  on  page 
102,  volume  II: 

It  is  natural  that  in  the  staff  of  the  army  not  only  younger 
active  officers,  but  likewise  experienced  stratgeists,  should  feel  the 
need  of  turning  to  account  the  efficiency  of  the  troops  led  by  them, 
and  their  own  capacity  to  lead,  and  of  making  them  prominent  iti 
history.  It  would  be  a matter  of  regret  if  tliis  effect  of  the  military 
spirit  did  not  exist  in  the  army ; the  task  of  keeping  its  results 
within  such  Lmits  as  the  nations’  netd  of  peace  can  just'y  claim 
is  the  duty  of  the  political,  not  the  military,  Iieads  of  the  state. 

That  at  the  time  of  the  Luxemlmrg  question,  during  the  crisis 
of  1875,  invented  by  Gortschakoff  and  France,  and  even  down  to 
the  m.ost  recent  timies,  the  staff  and  its  leaders  have  allowed  them- 
selves to  be  led  astray  and  to  endanger  peace,  lies  in  the  very  spirit 
of  the  insitution. 

if  the  breakdown  of  civilization  in  Europe  has  anything  to 
teach  Amierica,  surely  it  is  the  danger  of  any  increase  in  the  forces 
or  the  philosoph.y  of  militarism. 


Discipline 

The  second  argument  for  universal  military  service  is  that  it 
will  promote  discipline.  It  will  teach  obedience  and  respect  for 
authority,  it  is  urged,  and  these  elements  are  greatly  needed  in 
.A.merican  life.  The  trouble  here  is  the  kind  of  discipline  which 
military  service  provides.  It  is  a discipline  enforced  from  without 
and  breaks  down  as  soon  as  the  restraining  force  is  removed.  The 


UNIVERSAL  MILITARY  TRAINING 


25 


whole  object  of  military  training  is  to  secure  instantaneous  obed- 
ience without  thought,  to  make  a m:an  a part  of  an  automatic 
military  machine  so  that  if  he  is  ordered  to  sink  the  Lusitania  or 
destroy  Louvain,  he  will  obey  instantly  and  unquestioningly. 
Such  unthinking  obedience  is  far  removed  from  that  self-imposed 
discipline,  that  respect  for  laws  because  they  have  been  enacted  by 
common  consent  and  for  the  welfare  of  the  people;^ of  freedom  of 
discussion,  of  speech,  of  press,  of  assembly,  and  of  concience, 
which  are  the  foundation  stones  of  a self-governing  democracy. 
The  history  of  Prussia  illustrates  clearly  the  inevitable  results  of 
military  discipline.  At  first,  the  German  people  opposed  conscrip- 
tion bitterly,  but  after  a few  generations  of  mien  had  been  put 
through  the  military  miachine  and  taught  the  right  kind  of  obed- 
ience, all  opposition  ceased.  Germiany  becam.e  a servile  state.  More 
and  more  power  was  given  into  the  hands  of  the  military  caste,  and 
the  events  which  have  occurred  since  August  1,  1914,  have  been 
well  called  “The  Nemesis  of  docility.” 

National  Unity 

The  third  argument  is  that  it  will  promote  Americanization, 
it  will  heal  all  our  divisions  of  race  and  nationality,  eliminate  the 
hyphen,  and  unify  the  American  people. 

The  experience  of  European  nations  which  have  tried  to  meet 
similar  problems  by  this  method  is  in  flat  contradition  to  such  an 
assumption.  In  Austria  militarism  has  reigned  with  undisputed 
sway,  but  universal  military  service  for  generations  has  failed  to 
unite  Germ^ans  and  Bohemians,  Poles,  and  Czechs  and  Slave  in  the 
ideal  unity  which  our  militarists  picture  for  us  as  the  inevitable 
result  of  conscription.  In  fact,  it  was  a matter  of  coimmon  know- 
ledge that  the  death  of  Emiperor  Franz  Joseph  was  to  be  the 
signal  for  a simultaneous  revolution  in  which  all  the  races  of 
Austria  should  seek  freedom  from  the  unity  thus  imposed  upon 
them  by  conscription  and  force,  and  only  the  outbreak  of  the  great 
war  has  prevented  the  disintegration  of  the  Austria  Empire.  It 
may  be  that  war  has  a unifying  influence  and  that  the  Austrian 
Empire  will  be  solidified  by  the  terrible  ordeal  through  which  it  is 
passing.  That  rcm.ains  to  be  seen.  But  in  any  case,  I do  not 
understand  the  advocates  of  universal  military  service  to  be  urg- 
ing war  as  a remedy  for  the  lack  of  unity  in  our  national  life. 
The  history  of  Poland,  of  the  subject  races  and  nationalities  of 
Russia,  and  of  Turkey  is  a refutation  of  the  claim  that  national 
unity  can  be  secured  by  universal  military  service. 

America  needs  unity,  a national  consciousness,  and  a national 


26 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  OKLAHOMA 


will,  but  no  reactionary,  militaristic,  obsolete,  old  world  instru- 
ment, such  as  conscription,  can  unify  the  American  people. 

Patriotism 

A fourth  argument  for  universal  military  service  is  that  it  will 
promote  patriotism,  it  will  teach  a man  to  be  ready  to  sacrifice 
himself  for  others  and  to  lay  down  his  life  for  hiscountry,  in  the 
service  of  a great  idea.  The  difficulty  with  this  plan  is  that  there 
are  various  kinds  of  patriotism  and  the  tendency  of  militarism  is 
to  em.phasize  the  wrong  kind — the  patriotism  which  corresponds  to 
a narrow  nationalism  and  to  Jingoism  and  the  patriotism  which  is 
based  upon  the  hatred  of  other  parts  of  the  human  race  who  hap- 
pen to  live  the  other  side  of  a boundary  line.  Patriotism  and 
nationalism  of  the  wrong  kind  are  defeating  their  own  ends  in 
Europe.  For  the  sake  of  our  country,  as  well  as  for  humanity, 
we  must  develop  another  type  of  patriotism  than  universal  military 
service  has  given  us  in  Germany  or  any  of  the  European  countries, 
a patriotism  which  will  look  upon  America  as  a part  of  the  world 
and  will  take  pride  in  the  contributions  which  America  can  make 
to  the  family  of  nations.  Independence  for  the  sake  of  independ- 
ence, a new  nation  merely  that  there  might  l)e  one  more  army  and 
navy  in  the  world,  was  no  part  of  the  purpose  of  the  founders  of 
the  Republic.  As  Henry  Adams  said  of  the  great  author  of  the 
Declaration  of  Independence: 

Jefferson  aspired  beyond  the  ambition  of  a nationality,  and 
embraced  in  his  view  the  whole  future  of  man.  That  the  United 
States  should  become  a nation  like  France,  England  or  Russia,  or 
should  conquer  the  world  like  Rome,  was  no  part  of  his  scheme. 
He  wished  to  begin  a new  era.  Hoping  for  a time  when  the 
world's  ruling  interests  should  cease  to  be  local  and  should  become 
universal ; when  questions  of  boundary  and  nationality  should  be- 
come insignificant;  when  armies  and  navies  should  be  reduced  to 
the  work  of  police, — he  set  himself  to  the  task  of  governing  with 

this  golden  age  in  view He  would  not  consent  to  build 

up  a new  nationality  merely  to  create  more  navies  and  armies,  to  be 
perpetuate  the  crimes  and  follies  of  Europe;  the  central  govern- 
ment at  Washington  should  not  be  permitted  to  indulge  in  the 
miserable  ambitions  that  had  made  the  Old  World  a hell  and 
frustrated  the  hopes  of  humanity. 

We  need  greatly  a rebirth  of  true  patriotism,  just  as  we  need 
a more  fundamental  democracy,  deeper  national  unity,  more  self- 
dicipline,  but  universal  military  service  is  not  the  panacea  for  these 
ills.  A true  American  patriotism  can  be  created  only  by  return  to 
the  great  principles  of  the  founders  of  the  Republic,  a new  vision 
of  America  in  the  world,  a great  world  task  such  as  the  establish- 
ment of  a League  to  Enforce  Peace,  calling  for  the  sacrifice  of  old 


UNIVERSAL  MILITARY  TRAINING 


27 


p ovincialisms  and  outworn  traditions  in  the  service  of  humanity, 
as  a whole.  In  this  way,  under  the  great  constructive  leadership 
of  a world  statesman,  America  can  be  unified.  li  this  way  we  may 
recover  our  vision  of  democracy  and  we  may  lead  the  world  into 
a higher  patriotism,  purified  in  the  very  furnace  of  this  world  cri- 
sis. By  these  new  paths  which  lead  out  into  a future  full  of  hope 
and  service,  it  may  be  that  in  the  coming  years  the  soul  of 
America  will  be  born  again  into  a new  and  larger  life,  but  never  by 
the  path  of  conscription,  of  fear  and  servile  obedience,  and  the 
mechanical  methods  of  militarism. 

A much  deeper  principle  is  involved  than  is  usually  discussed 
in  connection  with  universal  military  service : What  kind  of  a 
society  do  we  wish  to  live  in?  For,  if  the  principle  of  compulsion 
is  accepted  in  the  case  of  military  service,  it  must  logically  be  ac- 
cepted for  service  in  munition  factories,  on  the  railroads,  in  coal 
mines  and  in  all  the  industrial  and  economic  life  upon  which  modern 
wars  depend.  In  other  words,  once  having  granted  the  principle  of 
compulsion  on  the  ground  of  military  necessity,  all  the  fundamen- 
tal principles  of  dem.ocracy  must  be  sacrificed  and  our  country 
must  be  “Prussianized”  from  within.  Freedom  of  speech,  freedom 
of  thought,  freedom  of  assembly  and  freedom  of  the  press  are  well 
opposed  to  military  effectiveness  and  must  disappear  step  by  step 
if  freedom  of  conscience,  the  advance  trench  of  democracy,  is 
carried  by  the  militarists  ; for  in  the  last  analysis,  universal  military 
service  means  conscription  of  conscience. 

The  new  political  perseuction  represented  by  the  adoption  of 
conscription  differs  from  the  old  religious  persecution  in  this: 
whereas,  in  the  Middle  Ages  the  heretic  could  save  his  life  by 
keeping  his  mouth  closed  and  his  opinions  to  himself,  in  the 
modern  political  persecution  of  Twentieth  Century  militarism,  the 
heretic  who  may  believe  an  aggressive  foreign  policy  is  unjust,  or 
a war  which  his  country  has  declared  is  unprovoked,  is  compelled 
not  only  to  keep  his  opinions  to  himself,  but  is  forced  to  go  out 
and  kill  his  fellowmen  against  whom  he  may  have  no  cause  for 
enmity  whatever. 

America  is  the  only  great  nation  left  in  the  world  in  which 
militarism  is  not  enthroned  and  the  principle  of  conscription 
established.  In  order  to  defend  our  institutions  and  our  democ- 
racy from  imaginary  dangers  from  without,  we  are  urged  to  sur- 
render to  this  much  more  real  and  formidable  enemy  of  militarism 
and  conscription  from  within.  Upon  the  outcome  of  the  great  de- 
bate on  “Conscription  vs.  Democracy”  depends  the  question  of 
whether  the  last  fortress  of  democracy  in  the  world  and  the 


28 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  OKLAHOMA 


greatest  adventure  in  human  history  shall  go  down  in  failure.  All 
patriotic  Americans,  all  who  believe  that  America  has  a mission 
and  a great  message  of  democracy  to  give  to  the  world  should  en- 
roll themselves  in  defense  of  America’s  freedom  and  domestic  in- 
stitutions presenting  a united  front  against  this  attempt  to  militarize 
the  whole  American  people. 

Sometime  in  the  future,  if  Europe  remains  an  armed  cainji 
after  this  war,  and  if  militarism  is  enthroned  in  the  world,  it  may 
become  inevitable  for  America  to  adopt  conscription,  and,  in 
Jefferson’s  words  “to  penpetuate  the  crimes  and  follies  of  Europe’’, 
“to  indulge  in  the  miserable  ambitions  that  had  made  the  Old 
World  a hell  and  frustrated  the  hopes  of  humanity.”  But  if  con- 
scription ever  docs  become  inevitable,  let  us  not  add  blasphemy 
to  our  other  crimes  by  adopting  militarism  in  the  name  of  democracy. 
No,  let  us  do  it  with  the  clear  knowledge  that  we  are  dealing  a 
death  blow  to  the  greatest  experiment  in  democracy  the  human 
race  has  ever  tried.  Let  us  do  itwith  the  consciousness  that  we 
have  participated  in  a great  world  tragedy,  and  that,  with  the 
triumph  of  militarism  in  the  New  World  as  well  as  the  Old,  we 
shall  have  seen  government  of  the  people,  by  the  people,  and  for 
the  people,  perish  from  tlie  earth. 

UNIVERSAL  MILITARY  TRAINING 
H.  L.  SCOTT,  Chief  of  Staff,  1916. 

Universal  military  training  has  been  the  corner  stone 
upon  which  has  been  built  every  republic  in  the  history  of  the 
world,  and  its  abandonment  the  signal  for  decline  and  oblitera- 
tion. This  fact  was  fully  recognized  by  the  makers  of  our 
Constitution  and  evidenced  in  our  early  laws.  A regular  army 
was  regarded  as  inconsistent  with  the  principles  of  free  govern- 
ment, dangerous  to  free  institutions,  and  apart  from  the  nec- 
essities of  the  times.  All  were  imbued  with  a patriotism  which 
would  make  them  stand  shoulder  to  shoulder  in  upholding  the 
laws,  and  in  the  defense  of  the  common  country,  sharing  equal- 
ly the  blessings  of  peace  and  the  hardships  of  war.  The  law 
required  every  able-bodied  male  between  18  and  45  years  to 
keep  himself  provided  with  rifle  and  ammunition  and  to  attend 
muster,  and  was  in  effect  compulsory  military  service.  They 
were  called  together  for  training  at  muster  time  only,  for  the 
outdoor  life  of  the  early  settlers  was  considered  sufficient 
training  for  any  military  duty  they  were  then  liable  to  be  call- 
ed upon  to  perform.  Unfortunately  the  doctrine  of  States 
rights  crept  in  to  prevent  the  enforcement  of  Federal  law. 


UNIVERSAL  MILITARY  'PRAINING 


29 


and  each  State  was  left  to  build  up  its  militia.  The  Regular 
Army  existed  as  a small  force  to  protect  the  western  march 
of  civilization  from  Indian  foray,  and  notwithstanding  its 
brilliant  record,  the  attitude  of  a great  mass  of  our  people 
continued  hostile  to  the  soldier,  so  much  so  that  several  States 
and  Congress  have  in  recent  times  had  to  pass  law's  to  insure 
respect  to  the  uniform  and  its  wearers  in  public  places.  Some 
of  our  States,  while  extending  the  right  to  vote  to  aliens  of 
a few  month’s  residence  who  have  declared  their  intention 
to  become  citizens,  deny  it  absolutely  to  persons  in  the  mili- 
tary and  navy  service  of  the  United  States,  putting  them  in 
a class  with  the  criminal  and  insane. 

It  is  vital  that  our  ideas  with  reference  to  military  ser- 
vice be  regenerated.  For  our  small  army  we  go  into  the  labor 
market  for  recruits.  When  the  demand  for  labor  is  lax, 
the  stipend  of  the  soldier  attracts;  when  the  daily  wage  goes 
up,  recruiting  is  at  its  lowest  ebb.  There  is  no  appeal  to 
patriotism,  no  appeal  for  the  individual  to  obtain  military 
training  as  the  highest  duty  of  his  citizenship.  Enlistment  is 
held  out  as  a job  in  which  the  individual  gets  small  pay  but 
is  well  cared  for,  with  an  outdoor,  wholesome  life  and  re- 
tirement on  three-quarters  pay  and  allowances  after  thirty  years 
of  service,  and  it  is  accepted  as  a job.  This  view  was  given 
added  emphasis  by  the  last  session  of  Congress.  The  nation- 
al defense  act  prohibits  enlisted  men  from  engaging  in  any 
civil  occupations,  whether  for  pay  or  otherwise,  that  would 
put  them  in  competition  w'ith  men  in  civil  life.  The  fine 

quality  of  our  enlisted  men  is  due  to  the  care  in  accepting 
recruits  and  to  the  development  of  character  which  service 
under  the  flag  directed  by  competent  leaders  gives  men,  when 
the  realization  comes  that  their  lives  are  committed  to  the 
upholding  of  the  laws  of  the  Union.  The  generally  accept- 
ed idea  that  the  annual  per  cent  of  desertions  is  a serious 

reflection  upon  the  discipline  and  training  in  the  Army  is 
in  serious  error.  The  Army  will  show  a smaller  per  cent  of 
men  leaving  their  contract  and  job  than  any  business  enter- 
prise in  the  country.  The  annual  return  of  civil  life  of 

thousands  who  have  completed  their  enlistments  with  their 
views  of  life  settled,  to  become  successful  citizens  is  a superb 
testimonial  to  the  efficiency  of  the  machine,  as  well  as  are  the 
thousands  who  are  inspired  by  the  life  as  to  take  up  the  duty 
of  a soldier  as  their  vocation. 

A few  years  ago  w'e  reached  across  the  seas  and  assumed 


30 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  OKLAHOMA 


reponsibilities  of  insular  possessions  and  alien  races.  In  the 
interest  of  advancing  civilization  we  have  built  the  Panama 
Canal.  We  have  given  a fiat  to  the  world  that  on  this 
hemisphere  at  least  must  survive  the  principle  that  rulers  derive 
their  just  powers  from  the  consent  of  the  ruled.  We  claim 
an  enlightened  civilization  of  over  a hundred  million  people 
and  stand  the  richest  country  in  the  world.  As  a nation  we 
are  devoted  to  the  peaceful  vocationas  of  industrial  and  com- 
mercial life.  We  treat  others  as  we  desire  to  be  treated. 
Few  have  knowledge  of  war  and  fewer  still  any  training 
of  its  rigors.  We  are  entering  fully  into  the  affairs  of  the 
world  and  as  the  greatest  of  nations  we  must  be  ready  to  up- 
hold and  protect  our  institutions. 

It  is  fundamental  with  a free  people  that  equal  opportuni- 
ties and  protection  under  the  law  brings  equal  responsibili- 
ty in  upholding  and  maintaining  the  law.  Each  owes  to  the 
body  politic  his  duty  not  only  in  civil  affairs  but  also  in  the 
defense  of  the  nation.  But  with  us  thousands  have  been  in- 
culcated with  the  belief  that  wars  were  to  be  ended  and  that 
the  United  States  should,  as  the  exponent  of  the  highest 
civilization,  set  an  example  in  a minimum  military  prepared- 
ness, and  some  even  advocated  the  Army  and  Navy  be  dis- 
banded. The  country  became  apathetic  in  the  training  of  its 
people  for  national  defense.  But  the  awful  cauldron  of  war 
into  which  Europe  was  suddenly  plunged  has  served  to  awaken 
us  in  a measure  to  a realization  that  we  must  believe  in  our- 
selves, and  as  the  exponents  of  a democracy  that  should  regen- 
erate the  political  system  of  the  world,  we  must  be  ready 
to  hold  our  place  in  the  councils  of  the  world,  and  to  do  this  we 
must  be  physically  fit,  or  we  shall  be  brushed  aside  by  the  vig- 
orous manhood  of  other  races  who  sacrifice  self  that  the 
nation  may  live. 

During  the  months  of  Many  and  June  hundreds  of  thous- 
ands marched  in  socalled  preparedness  parades  to  the  plaudits 
of  onlookers.  But  when  the  militia  was  called  out  in  June  to 
protect  our  border,  it  was  with  the  utmost  difficulty  that  its 
units  were  recruited  to  the  small  number  required,  and  some 
were  never  filled.  The  spirit  was  rife  to  let  somebody  else 
do  it.  Not  only  is  there  evidence  of  the  volunteer  spirit  be- 
ing moribund,  but  the  States  have  for  3^ears  been  unable  to 
make  an  efficient  showing  with  the  militia,  even  with  the  gen- 
erous assistance  of  the  General  Government  in  qualified  in- 
structors and  supplies.  It  would  seem  that  the  self-reliance 


UNIVERSAL  MILITARY  TRAINING 


31 


of  the  individual,  like  that  of  the  States,  had  given  way  to  de- 
pendence upon  others.  The  fine  volunteer  spirit  of  the 
States  militia  was  injured  in  the  demand  for  Federal  pay  in 
time  of  peace.  It  sounded  the  knell  of  patriotic  military  train- 
ing for  individuals  and  commercialized  the  highest  duty  that 
a State  can  demand  from  its  people.  We  have  fallen  away 
from  the  teaching  of  the  Fathers,  for  there  is  no  longer  in- 
stilled into  our  people  the  fundamental  doctrine  that  every 
man  owes  a military  as  well  as  a civil  obligation  to  his  gov- 
ernment. 

A young  man  between  18  and  21  is  at  the  least  earning 
capacity  of  his  career.  It  is  a time  of  anxiety  to  the  parent 
and  uncertainty  for  the  son.  During  these  years  few  settle- 
into  their  life’s  vocation.  They  are  an  expense  to  their- 
parents;  their  average  earnings  will  not  pay  for  their  board  and 
clothes.  They  can  be  given  military  training  without  the 
slightest  disruption  of  business.  The  stabilizing  effect  of 
military  discipline  and  intensive  training  upon  such  young  men; 
would  be  of  utmost  value  in  forming  character,  and  thereby 
a foundation  for  their  life’s  work.  They  would  become  an 
asset  of  incalcuable  value  to  the  nation,  not  only  in  time  of 
emergency,  but  in  the  recruitment  to  industrial  life  of  the 
thousands  returned  from  military  pursuits  improved  mnetally, 
morally,  and  physically  by  the  training.  The  hundreds  of 
military  schools  in  the  country  are  evidence  of  the  faith  of 
thousands  of  parents  that  their  boys  are  better  fitted  for  the 
responsibilities  of  life  by  the  elementary  discipline  and  drills 
therein  received.  The  most  important  function  of  our  regular 
establishment  should  be  to  make  it  a real  training  school  for 
our  young  men,  and  thereby  inspire  them  with  the  spirit  of 
patriotism  and  sense  of  duty  and  responsibility  with  which  each 
generation  must  be  imbued  if  we  are  to  continue  our  high 
mission  as  a nation. 

I shall  not  attempt  in  this  report  to  evolve  a system  to 
carry  out  so  important  a work.  It  is  believed  that  the  aver- 
age parent  would  gladly  welcome  the  opportunity  for  mili- 
tary training  for  their  boys  between  the  ages  of  18  and  21.  As 
the  training  would  be  educational,  there  should  be  no  re- 
muneration for  service,  but  the  Government  should  stand  all 
the  expense. 

If  we  are  to  continue  to  compete  with  the  wage  of  labor 
for  our  soldiers  the  cost  will  be  enormous  if  we  are  to  get 
the  men.  We  hire  police,  we  hire  firemen,  but  there  is  a 


32 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  OKLAHOMA 


repugnance  to  the  idea  that  we  must  continue  to  commit  our- 
selves to  no  military  resource  other  than  that  of  hiring  citizens 
to  accept  military  training  and  to  commit  our  future  to  such 
inadequate  defense. 

The  justice  of,  as  well  as  the  necessity  for,  universal 
training  is  recognized  in  section  79  of  the  national  defense 
act,  which  prescribes  that  in  time  of  war,  “If  for  any  reason 
there  shall  not  be  enough  voluntary  enlistments  to  keep  the 
reserve  battalions  at  the  prescribed  strength,  a sufficient  num- 
ber of  the  unorganized  militia  shall  be  drafted  into  the  ser- 
vice of  the  United  States  to  maintain  each  such  battalion  at 
the  proper  strength.”  This  provision  is  intended  to  keep  the 
National  Guard  units  that  have  been  sent  into  the  field  at  war 
strength  and  is  one  of  the  best  provisions  regarding  the  Na- 
tional Guard  in  the  bill.  What  I am  contending  for  is 
that  the  principle  recognized  as  applying  to  time  of  war  should 
apply  equally  to  time  of  peace,  so  that  all  of  the  youth  of  the 
country  who  are  physically  qualified  for  military  service  should 
be  given  thorough  military  training  and  discipline  under  com- 
petent officers,  and  noncommissioned  officers,  so  that  on  the 
outbreak  of  war  they  will  be  able  without  much  additional 
training  to  render  efficient  service.  To  send  men  into  battle 
who  have  not  been  given  this  thorough  training  and  discipline 
is  not  only  a useless  waste  of  our  resources  in  men  but,  to 
anyone  who  understands  anj^thing  of  the  realities  of  modern 
war,  convicts  the  people  of  the  country  who  are  responsible 
for  such  proceeding  of  criminal  neglect. 


MILITARY  TRAINING  IN  THE  MAKING  OF  MEN 

FREDERICK  J.  LIBBY 

(Note:  Arguments  as  to  the  value  of  universal  military 
training  for  making  men  are  being  vigorously  pressed  to- 
day as  to  require  us  to  take  notice  of  the  effort  now  being 
made  in  certain  influential  quarters  to  fasten  upon  us  a per- 
manent policy  of  conscription  after  the  war.  We  must  espe- 
cially be  on  our  guard  against  the  danger  of  arguing  from  the 
apparent  consequences  of  the  selective  draft  in  time  of  war  to 
the  probable  consequences  of  that  system  in  time  of  peace. 
Obviously  in  war  time  there  is  an  idealism  and  devotion  that 
go  far  to  transform  the  drudgery,  autocracy  and  mechanical 
rigidity  of  the  military  machine.  The  writer  of  this  article 
deals  only  with  conscription  as  a permanent  policy  and  not 
with  the  wisdom  of  the  selective  draft  in  time  of  war.) 

Those  who  advocate  the  adoption  of  universal  military 
training  as  a permanent  policy  for  the  United  tSates  have  not 


UNIVERSAL  MILITARY  TRAINING 


33 


based  their  contention  solely  on  the  necessity  of  building  up 
a powerful  military  machine^  a question  which  the  outcome  of 
our  “war  to  end  war”  may  settle  forever.  They  have  ad- 
vanced also  certain  claims  as  to  the  value  of  military  training  in 
the  making  of  men  which  have  gained  apparently  wide  ac- 
ceptance. 

It  has  been  affirmed  first  that  military  training  includes 
patriotism,  secondly  that  it  teaches  obedience,  third,  that  it 
fosters  democracy,  and  fourth  that  it  develops  the  physical 
well-being  of  youth.  Inasmuch  as  our  youth  need  more 
patriotism,  more  obedience,  more  democracy  ,and  better  phy- 
sique, many  Americans  would  be  willing  to  give  military  train- 
ing a permanent  place  in  the  new  world  order  if  they  were 
assured  that  it  is  the  best  teacher  of  these  great  virtues. 
Consequently,  speeches  upon  the  subject  have  been  largely 
taken  up  with  the  presentation  of  these  virtues  as  by-pro- 
ducts of  a military  system.  That  they  are  important  could 
not  be  disputed;  and  that  they  are  by-products  of  military 
training  has  been  accepted  almost  without  discussion  by  the 
unthinking  American  public.  Let  us  consider  them  one  by 
one  and  see  how  far  they  bear  scrutiny. 

Does  Military  Training  Make  Good  Patriots 

First  of  all,  does  military  training  inculcate  patriotism? 
From  the  confidence  with  which  this  assertion  has  been  put 
forward  one  would  suppose  that  it  cannot  be  denied.  In  a 
superficial  sense  it  does  inculcate  patriotism.  The  recent 
draft  has  made  men  who  never  before  had  been  conscious 
of  their  obligation  to  America  realize  that  they  were  its  citi- 
zens and  that  as  citizens  they  owe  their  country  a debt. 
Poles,  Lithuanians,  Englishmen,  Germans,  Italians,  Greeks,  all 
have  been  forced  to  choose  between  conflicting  loyalties  and 
to  confess  their  true  allegience.  Outwardly,  at  least,  they 
have  renounced  all  nationalities  except  that  which  made  them 
.A.mericans.  Those  between  twenty-one  and  thirty-one  have 
entered  the  army.  This  sacrifice,  itis  assumed,  has  trans- 
formed all  who  were  indifferent  into  patriots. 

Now  it  is  probable  that  such  a transformation  has  taken 
place  in  very  many  instances,  but  it  must  not  be  forgotten 
that  this  was  in  time  of  war.  The  newspapers  of  the  country 
have  united  to  impress  upon  the  minds  of  the  doubtful  the 
urgency  of  the  need.  But  remove  the  urgency,  let  peace 
once  more  descend  upon  us,  and  is  it  supposed  that  this  forced 


34 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  OKLAHOMA 


Americanism  would  have  similar  results?  Is  it  not  well 
known  that  hundreds  of  thousands  of  our  immigrants  left  their 
native  lands  through  hatred  of  this  very  service?  They  hated 
it  because  in  time  of  peace  it  seemed  to  them  an  unwarrant- 
able interference  with  their  normal  lives.  Clearly  in  them  it 
did  not  at  that  time  breed  patriotism.  It  led  to  their  ex- 
patriation. They  preferred  to  become  exiles  from  home  for- 
ever rather  than  submit  to  it.  Consequently,  is  it  not  safe  to 
conclude  that  in  a time  of  universal  peace  the  great  major- 
ity of  the  American  people  would  not  give  cheerful  service  to 
a country  whose  urgent  need  of  it' they  failed  to  see?  In 
the  case  of  many,  military  training  would  kindle  not  patriot- 
ism, but  the  fires  of  discontent. 

Quite  as  serious  an  objection  to  military  training  as  a 
teacher  of  patriotism  is  found  in  the  narrowness  of  the 
patriotism  that  it  engenders.  I am  not  sure  that  it  even 
deserves  the  name  of  patriotism  in  the  twentieth  century. 
It  is  rather  a jealous,  tribal  sensitiveness,  an  intense  national- 
ism which  verges  on  arrogance.  The  military  patriot  be- 
comes suddenly  punctilious  about  “national  honor”  defined  in 
medieval  terms.  Jostle  me  and  you  must  fight  me,  provoke 
me  and  I will  take  your  life.  This  spirit  is  fertile  soil  for 
breeding  international  suspicion.  This  is  the  patriotism  that 
fosters  war.  It  tends  to  destroy  the  very  nation  that  it 
swears  to  defend,  a fact  to  which  Germany  today  bears  elo- 
quent witness. 

Now  true  patriotism,  I take  it,  is  a broad  and  comprehen- 
sive virtue.  It  is  constructive.  It  is  intelligent.  It  seeks 
to  promote  the  welfare  of  the  State  in  all  its  complex  life. 
Farmer,  factory  worker,  financier,  boy  scout,  and  college  pro- 
fessor, miner  and  poet  and  preacher,  cartoonist,  and  nurse, 
all  serve  the  State  within  their  vocations,  and  without  military 
training  they  have  been  proving  their  patriotism.  More  than 
this,  is  not  the  true  patriot  active  in  the  public  service  outside 
of  his  vocation?  The  conscientious  use  of  the  ballot  is  the 
least  of  his  obligations  as  a citizen.  His  bank  account  and 
his  lime  alike  will  always  be  at  the  command  of  the  State 
in  so  far  as  his  means  will  allow.  If  desirable  public  im- 
provements demand  a higher  tax  rate,  the  patriot  will  pay  it 
cheerfully.  He  will  accept  public  office  as  a public  trust,  and 
far  from  seeking  private  profit  in  so  doing,  he  will  avoid 
scrupulously  even  the  appearance  of  fraud  or  simony. 

This  larger  patriotism  military  training  has  never  in- 


UNIVERSAL  MILITARY  TRAINING 


•35 


culcated.  We  have  never  asked  that  it  should  even  try  to  teach 
it.  Who  has  ever  expected  a soldier  to  pay  his  taxes  more 
willingly  than  a civilian  does?  Who  expects  him  to  show  in 
civil  life  the  humble,  earnest  spirit  in  which  he  entered  the 
army — as  one  who  gives,  not  one  who  gets?  Who  expects 
him  to  set  a lifelong  example  of  disinterested  public  service? 
One  has  but  to  recall  the  history  of  pension  legislation  to  per- 
ceive that  the  soldier  can  learn  a kind  of  patriotism  which  does 
not  cover  his  life  as  a civilian.  A brave  man  will  die  for 
his  country,  but  he  must  have  many  other  virtues  besides 
bravery  if  he  will  live  for  it;  and  it  is  the  sum  of  these 
virtues  that  we  may  call  the  twentieth  century  patriotism. 

Nor  can  love  for  America  on  the  part  of  our  immigrant 
population  be  taught  by  soldiering.  The  world  is  so  con- 
stituted as  to  admit  of  no  short  cuts.  There  is  only  one  way  to 
make  an  immigrant  love  America.  He  must  find  America 
lovable.  An  exploited  Pole  will  not  be  made  a patriot  by 
marching  him  up  and  down.  A garment  worker  who  is  always 
hungry  needs  proper  wages  to  make  him  feel  patriotic.  Con- 
ditions in  the  factory  and  the  mine  must  breed  in  our  immi- 
grants love  for  the  country  of  their  adoption  or  they  will  soon 
be  found  among  the  rebels,  made  by  military  training  only  the 
more  dangerous.  True,  they  may  be  cowed  into  subservience 
for  a while,  they  may  be  kept  under  by  methods  which  we 
have  come  to  associate  with  Prussianism,  but  loyal  and  free 
Americans  they  will  never  be.  America  at  her  best  means 
liberty,  opportunity,  democracy,  brotherhood,  service.  Only 
he  who  has  found  these  has  reached  the  true  America.  Only 
he  who  is  experiencing  here  an  unwonted  richness  of  life 
will  feel  the  patriotic  fervor  which  we  should  like  every  newcom- 
er to  our  shores  to  know. 

Does  Military  Training  Teach  Obedience? 

Secondly,  does  military  training  teach  obedience?  Here 
again  the  unthinking  answer  is  that  the  question  admits  of  no 
controversy.  Surely,  if  military  training  teaches  anything, 
it  teaches  obedience.  From  dawn  to  dawn,  whether  in  camp 
or  out  of  it,  the  soldier  is  made  aware  of  the  inexorable 
power  of  the  military  machine.  To  it  he  must  yield  or  he 
will  be  crushed  under  it.  It  knows  no  mercy  and  shows  no 
favors.  It  is  as  inflexible  as  Death.  How,  then,  it  is 
asked,  can  a boy  pass  through  this  machine  and  fail  to  learn 
obedience? 


I 


36 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  OKLAHOMA 


Yes,  he  learns  it, — that  is,  most  boys  do, — although  the 
prisons  and  guardhouses  betray  its  failure  with  an  appreciable 
number.  But  what  kind  of  obedience  does  he  learn?  Is 
it  not  a kind  that  enlightened  public  sentiment  has  rejected 
from  both  school  and  home  probably  forever?  Even  those 
who  regard  as  a golden  age  the  time  when  father  and  school- 
master were  absolute  monarchs  and  Maintained  their  authori- 
ty with  rod  and  cane,  do  not  seriously  look  for  its  return. 
It  was  part  of  a system  of  blind  obedience  resting  on  brute 
force  which  free  men  everywhere  are  challenging.  The  re- 
duction of  men  to  unthinking,  irresponsible,  automatic  mach- 
ines has  value  only  for  certain  military  purposes.  From 
every  other  point  of  view  such  discipline  is  the  exact  opposite 
of  what  is  generally  regarded  as  desirable.  Were  this  not 
the  case,  why  should  we  stop  with  a little  military  training 
for  our  young  men?  Should  we  not  all  live  better  under 
martial  law?  Belgium  knows  the  answer. 

Does  Military  Training  Make  Good  Citizens? 

In  the  third  place,  militarism  is  said  to  foster  democracy. 
It  has  been  described  as  “the  great  leveller.”  Rich  and  poor' 
are  forced  to  sleep  in  the  same  tent,  the  refined  and  the 
vulgar  to  march  shoulder  to  shoulder,  and  presto!  democracy 
has  arrived!  This  blind  juxtaposition  of  the  uncongenial  we 
admit  to  be  a feature  of  the  life  of  the  rank  and  file  under 
military  compulsion.  We  grant  even  more.  Mother’s  dar- 
ling at  camp  will  get  the  sugar  only  after  his  messmates  at  the 
table  have  licked  their  spoons  and  dipped  them  into  it.  Clean- 
liness and  health  of  body  and  mind  will  be  inevitably  ex- 
posed to  the  contagion  of  that  which  is  vicious  and  unclean. 
No,  it  cannot  be  denied  that  military  service  in  the  ranks  will 
prove  a great  leveller, 

This  does  not  establish,  however,  the  democracy  of  mili- 
tary training.  The  usual  difference  in  the  status  of  the 
educated  and  the  uneducated,  of  the  rich  and  the  poor,  of  the 
socially  “superior”  and  the  socially  “inferior’  obtains  just  as 
much  in  the  army  as  in  any  other  profession.  College  men. 
for  instance  can  always  rise  from,  “democracy”  in  which  they 
find  themselves  by  studying  for  commissions.  Moreover, 
the  “paper  work,”  the  figuring,  etc.,  required  of  commissioned^, 
officers  is  now  so  exacting  that  it  is  not  easy  in  these  days  for 
privates  ever  to  be  promoted  to  the  coveted  positions  higher 
up. 


UNIVERSAL  MILITARY  TRAINING 


.17 


Only  the  self-deceived  and  the  foolish  would  look  tor 
democracy  in  the  most  rigid  type  of  aristocracy  known  to 
man.  The  commander  of  an  army,  even  under  the  most  favor- 
able conditions,  is  necessarily  an  autocrat,  in  comparison  with 
whom  the  Czar  of  all  the  Russias  wielded  a wooden  scepter. 
In  time  of  war,  he  crowds  even  God  from  his  throne,  abro- 
gates civil  and  moral  laws,  and  becomes,  to  his  army,  mind, 
will,  and  even  conscience.  Below  him  in  descending  scale 
his  officers  share  his  absolutism.  What  place,  then,  in  a mili- 
tary machine  is  there  for  democracy? 

Nor  can  it  be  claimed  that  even  if  all  were  to  be  privates, 
the  army  would  ofifer  the  only  place  where  widely  separated 
classes  of  American  society  can  meet.  A doctor’s  profession 
brings  him  into  close  touch  with  rich  and  poor  and  high  and 
low,  and  gives  him  better  opportunity  really  to  know  men 
than  does  the  loose  talk  of  the  barracks.  What  is  true  of 
medicine  is  true  of  the  law,  the  ministry  , business,  engineering, 
politics,  and  many  other  forms  of  civil  activity.  They  offer 
better  opportunities  of  knowing  one’s  fellows  on  sides  worth 
knowing  than  does  military  training  under  peace  conditions. 
The  limits  to  the  breadth  of  almost  any  reputable  civilian’s 
acquaintance  are  time  and  inclination,  and  this  will  be  in- 
creasingly true  as  we  democratize  our  industrial  life. 

Does  Military  Training  Insure  Good  Health? 

In  the  fourth  place,  military  training  is  said  to  develop 
men  physically.  After  the  testimony  which  our  drafted  men 
have  brought  home  in  their  own  persons,  it  cannot  be  denied 
that  military  training  has  improved  the  health  and  physique  of 
the  vast  majority  of  its  recipients  under  the  recent  draft. 
Outdoor  life  with  several  hours  of  exercise  will  work  wonders 
though  all  the  laws  of  hygiene  be  disregarded,  and  though 
the  exercise  taken  be  the  poorest  that  could  be  chosen.  This 
is  true  especially  if  only  picked  men  are  to  be  recipients  of 
the  training  and  those  who  need  it  most  can  be  disregarded. 
No  one  will  deny  that  outdoor  life  is  beneficial,  but  will  any 
one  affirm  that  military  drill  is  the  healthiest  form  of  outdoor 
life? 

Dr.  Dudley  Sargent,  director  of  the  Harvard  gymnasium, 
has  proven  the  manual  of  arms  to  offer  none  of  the  essential 
elements  of  a good  physical  exercise.  The  training  it  gives 
is  one-sided,  it  lacks  interest — at  any  rate  in  times  of  peace — 
it  does  not  quicken  adequately  the  respiration  or  the  circula- 


38 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  OKLAHOMA 


tion  of  the  blood,  it  requires  identically  the  same  of  all,  it  im- 
pairs the  tone  of  the  muscles  by  prolonged  tension,  it  has  little 
or  no  value  as  training  for  the  central  nerve  system,  and  it 
offers  slight  opportunity  for  the  display  of  coolness,  courage, 
judgment,  and  presence  of  mind,  for  struggle,  and  cooperation, 
and  loyalty,  qualities  all  of  which  are  fostered  on  the  other 
hand  by  our  national  sports.  Probably  time  could  not  be 
spent  out  of  doors  in  any  conceivable  form  af  activity  that 
would  be  productive  of  so  little  physical  good  as  that  which, 
is  devoted  to  military  drill,  using  the  term  in  the  restricted 
sense. 

Regarding  other  features  of  up-to-date  military  training 
such  as  the  bayonet  drill  and  trench  construction,  it  is  only 
fair  to  say  that  they  furnish  the  strong  with  excellent  means 
of  further  physical  development.  Little  account,  however, 
can  be  made  in  the  inflexible  system  of  the  army  of  dif- 
ferences between  individuals.  Within  roughly  fixed  limits, 
all  are  forced  to  undergo  the  same  physical  strain  day  after 
day  provided,  they  are  well  enough  to  be  out  of  bed.  No- 
where else  in  modern  life  is  blind  rigidity  of  requirement 
combined  with  a severity  that  exacts  the  full  pound  of  flesh 
even  from  the  strong. 

One  more  factor  in  the  situation  cannot  be  ignored,  and 
that  is  the  effect  of  military  training  may  fairly  be  expected 
to  have  upon  the  physique  of  the  soldiers  after  their  return 
to  civil  life.  Suppose,  for  example,  that  a mill-hand  after  living 
outof  doors  for  six  months  or  a year  returns  to  the  confine- 
ment of  his  former  life  for  ten  or  even  eight  hours  a day.  Is 
it  not  likely  that  after  a few  week  either  he  will  abandon  the 
mill  and  be  lost  to  the  industry  that  needs  him,  or  that  he  will 
gradually  fall  back  into  the  unhealthly  rut  from  which  he 
was  temporarily  withdrawn  and  be  really  worse  off  than  before? 
As  a practical  measure  w'ould  not  the  shortening  of  the  work- 
ing day  of  all  factory  workers  to  a maximum  of  eight  hours 
with  a great  extension  of  the  garden  movement,  of  sunset 
baseball  leagues,  of  park  and  playground,  for  the  months 
when  men  and  boys  can  be  out  of  doors,  and  of  municipal 
gymnasium  privileges  and  swimming  pools  for  winter  use  do 
more  to  improve  their  health  permanently  than  a year  in  the 
army,  even  assuming,  what  is  by  no  means  promised,  that 
nearly  all  of  them  would  be  able  to  pass  its  physical  examina- 
tions and  get  in?  If  it  is  believed  that  this  important  matter 
of  physical  health  cannot  be  left  to  individual  initiative  but 


UNIVERSAL  MILITARY  TRAINING 


39 


must  be  assured  another  of  the  rapidly  increasing  State 
regulations,  would  not  a great  industrial  army  digging  sewers 
and  irrigation  ditches  instead  of  trenches,  building  roads  and 
bridges  instead  of  barbed  wire  entanglements,  and  practicing 
forestry  from  the  scientific  rather  than  the  military  view- 
point, without  the  injurious  and  wasteful  military  drill,  offer 
all  the  physical  benefits  accruing  from  army  life  and  at  the 
same  time  escape  its  inherent  evils? 

The  Summing  Up 

Military  training,  like  State  socialism,  would  fain  be  con- 
sidered the  cure  of  all  our  nation’s  ills.  No  such  panacea 
exists.  That  our  boys  need  better  physique,  and  better  habits 
of  obedience,  and  more  democracy,  and  sounder  patriotisiti 
may  readily  be  admitted.  How  to  lift  them  to  this  higher 
plane  of  living  despite  the  downward  pull  of  inertia  and  self- 
ishness is  a question  that  has  not  yet  been  adequately  an- 
swered. It  will  not  be  solved  by  any  program.  It  is  a spirit- 
ual program  and  no  mechanical  device  will  meet  it.  Educa- 
tion and  inspiration  will  solve  it,  but  their  effectiveness  depends 
upon  the  sincere  cooperation  of  all  Americans.  Patriotism, 
for  example,  can  be  taught  by  the  school  and  the  press,  but  the 
factory  and  the  mine  also  must  engender  it.  In  fostering 
intelligent  obedience  no  substitute  can  replace  the  home 
and  the  school,  but  they  need  to  be  supplemented  by  wise  fac- 
tory foremen  and  by  constituted  authority  in  all  walks  of  life 
working  along  democratic,  not  autocratic  lines,  Democracy 
is  one  of  the  fundamental  Christian  virtues  and  as  such  it  can- 
not be  forced  upon  men  by  mere  contiguity.  To  be  real  it 
must  be  of  the  heart.  In  our  public  school  system  and  in 
the  ordinary  intercourse  of  our  business,  professional  and  so- 
cial life,  we  have  abundant  opportunity  to  be  as  democratic 
as  we  want  to  be.  Patriotism  demands  that  we  enter  into 
our  opportunity.  With  regard  to  the  physical  development 
of  our  youths  there  is  no  doubt  that  much  more  pains  should 
be  taken  in  the  public  schools.  Every  child  ought  to  be  given 
a sound  body  as  well  as  a reasonable  mental  equipment  be- 
fore he  finishes  his  school  days.  To  what  age  the  State  should 
keep  its  hand  upon  him  to  compel  him  to  maintain  a high 
grade  of  physical  efficiency,  future  experience  will  have  to 
determine. 

It  is  probably  reliance  on  a specious  materialistic  phil- 
osophy that  is  the  cause  of  the  collapse  of  the  whole  argument 


40 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  OKLAHOMA 


for  military  training  in  the  making  of  men.  “Not  by  might, 
nor  by  power,  but  by  my  spirit,  sayeth  the  Lord  of  hosts,” — by 
His  spirit  transmitted  through  man  to  man,  and  through  men 
to  boys, — only  so  can  the  America  of  our  dreams  find  realiza- 
tion, 

DEMOCRACY  AND  SERVICE  ARE  INSEPARABLE 

By  Lieutenant  General  S.  B.  M.  Young,  U.  S,  A, 

In  countries  where  universal  military  service  is  employed,  uni- 
versal military  training  becomes  part  of  the  education  of  the 
citizen.  Where  such  service  does  not  prevail,  as  in  the  United 
States,  dependence  has  been  placed  on  the  National  Guard  and  vol- 
unteers. Therefore,  in  tim.e  of  peace,  the  profession  of  the  army 
is  regarded  by  our  citizens  as  a trade  by  which  a livelihood  is 
earned. 

Since  the  commencem.ent  of  the  Mexican  border  troubles  and  the 
European  War,  universal  military  training  is  receiving  so  much 
favor  from  the  very  best  men  in  the  land  that  we  may  look'  for- 
ward to  its  adoption,  some  time  in  the  near  future,  as  the  only  proper 
military  policy  for  the  protection  of  the  country.  This  nation,  by 
its  fathers,  was  dedicated  to  the  proposition  that  “Dem.ocracy  and 
service  are  inseparable.” 

A democracy  which  does  not  identify  itself  with  its  army  and 
navy  and  which  refuses  to  train  itself  for  its  own  defense  is  trave- 
ling on  a dangerous  trail. 

Upon  a citizenry  trained  to  arms  rests  the  power  of  the  nation 
to  resist  invasion. 

Every  young  man  in  America  should  be  compelled  to  take  suf- 
ficient military  training  to  make  him  efficient  for  national  defense, 
and,  at  the  same  time,  teach  him  physical  hygiene,  application  of 
sanitary  science,  discipline,  and  respect  for  authority.  By  “military 
training”  I do  not  mean  simply  the  manual  of  arms,  target  shoot- 
ing, company  and  regimental  drills  and  field  maneuvers,  but  all 
those  other  and  superior  things  which  go  to  make  thorough  and 
complete  military  training  of  mind  and  body.  The  physical  bene- 
fit to  be  derived  from  such  military  instruction  is  incalculable  and 
is  alone  worth  all  it  may  cost. 

The  charge  has  been  m.ade  that  we  are  losing  our  national 
ideals  and  that  we  have  forgotten  how  to  obey — if  we  ever  knew. 
If  we  are  to  overcome  the  onus  of  these  charges,  we  must  do  so 
through  training  of  our  young  men  in  the  ideals  which  have  been 
lianded  down  to  us  from  an  ancestry  which  was  willing  to  fight 
for  them,  sacrifice  for  them,  and  when  need  arose,  die  for  them. 


UNIVERSAL  MILITARY  TRAINING 


41 


They  died  that  we  might  rest  secure,  as  we  have  rested  secure  for 
many  generations.  If  we  value  this  sacred  heritage,  we  must  qualify 
to  answer  the  call  of  our  country  and  answer  it  fully  equipped  for 
the  task. 

We  are  exerting  every  effort  and  expending  huge  suras  in 
order  that  the  citizen  of  the  future  may  be  better  trained  for  his 
duties  than  they  are  or  ever  have  known. 

Military  Training  Is  Democratic 

The  elbow  touch  is  the  thing  most  needed  to  prevent  class 
tendencies,  and  I know  of  no  finer  influence  against  this  tendency 
than  that  supplied  through  military  training.  It  also  teaches  the 
young  men  in  all  stations  that  the  government  is  not  an  agency  from 
which  somiCthing  is  to  be  had,  but  an  institution  with  first  claim 
on  them  for  the  best  they  have  to  give.  I do  not  believe  we  can 
ever  m.ake  real  men  or  real  citizens  by  endeavoring  to  give  our  peo- 
ple something  they  have  not  earned. 

Then,  again,  can  there  be  any  doubt  of  the  truly  democratic 
ideal  of  the  proposal  that  every  young  man  should  prepare  himself 
to  a reasonable  degree  of  efficiency  to  defend  his  country?  Class 
feeling  will  gradually  disappear  before  an  ideal  founded  on  service 
to  the  state  by  all  classes.  In  no  other  way  may  Vve  hope  to  fuse 
together  the  widely  different  elements  of  our  population  and  instill 
into  them  the  conviction  that  this  is  indeed  a nation. 

Work  for  the  Women 

With  reference  to  the  inclusion  of  girls  in  any  scheme  of  uni- 
versal military  training  for  the  national  service,  attention  is  in- 
vited to  the  increasinglylarge  number  of  girls  receiving  vocation.al 
training  throughout  the  country  and  also  to  the  fact  that  large 
numbers  of  girls  and  women  are  fast  qualifying  for  agricultural 
pursuits. 

All  these  activities  of  the  women  folk  are  steps  in  the  rig:  t 
direction  for  national  service  for  the  womanhood  of  the  nation. 
As  women  cannot  bear  arms,  any  scheme  adding  military  training  to 
the  other  large  opportunities  for  boys  should  contemplate  an  in- 
crease in  the  vocational  pursuits  for  girls. 

The  natural  corollary  to  universal  militar}'  training  is  ecjual 
service.  The  duty — and  it  is  a dutyof  the  first  importance — of 
national  defense  is  an  eciual  obligation  upon  all  citizens — women  as 
well  as  men — and  unless  this  duty  shall  be  assumed  and  discharged 
along  lines  of  absolute  equality,  the  structure  of  democracy  will  not 
endure.  We  do  not  desire  a large  army  in  America.  I mean  !)y 


42 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  OKLAHOMA 


this  what  is  known  as  a “regular”  or  “professional”  army,  but  \vc 
do  want  to  know  that  we  can  assemble  the  units — evenly  balanced — 
of  all  arms  of  the  service,  and  assemble  them  quickly  when  needed. 

With  this  foundation  firmly  laid  in  the  national  life,  we  may 
build  the  superstructure  to  suit  the  exigencies  of  each  moment  of 
stress  and,  through  experience,  remodel  it  again  and  again,  or  tear 
it  away  and  build  anew,  and  still  the  force  arising  from  the  bed- 
rock foundation  of  universal  military  training  would  endure,  and 
would  be  found  to  meet  every  possible  strain — for  it  is  the  only 
clastic  system  and  the  only  one  which  can  ever  become  a perman- 
ent success  in  a democracy. 

Our  regular  army  ,though  numbering  less  than  one-fourth  of 
the  mobile  force  necessary  for  our  great  country,  has  always  been 
efficient  for  the  work  assigned  it  to  do  and  has  been  an  exemplar 
to  the  militia  and  the  volunteer  forces  called  into  the  service.  It 
has  trusted  in  God  and  kept  its  powder  dry.  It  has,  in  the  last  anal- 
ysis, evidenced  a consistent  belief  in  the  fatherhool  of  God  and 
the  brotherhood  of  man,  and  has  accomiplished  results  of  infinite 
value  to  mankind. 

Wealth  and  Weakness 

We  have  become  rich  and  ease  loving;  weakness  and  wealth 
always  have  been  and  undoubtedly  always  will  be ; we  are  open  to 
attack,  and  therefore  in  great  danger  of  a national  disaster  unless 
we  succeed  in  awakening  the  great  majority  of  our  citizens,  and 
especially  our  lawmakers,  to  a thorough  realization  of  the  menace 
of  our  weakened  condition. 

With  military  training  for  one  year  with  the  colors  for  all  our 
physically  fit  boys  between  the  ages  of  eighteen  and  twenty-one 
and  coordinate  training  of  our  young  wom.en,  and  a standing  army 
of  250,000,  we  may  look  forward  from  our  past  to  our  future  with 
confidence  that  officers  and  men  of  both  the  regular  and  citizen 
army  will  acquit  themselves  with  credit  and  with  honor  to  their 
country,  which  stands  for  liberty,  progress  and  the  individuality  of 
man. 

I believe  that  out  of  universal  military  training  and  equal  ser- 
vice will  arise  a new  America — consecrated  to  the  preservation  of 
national  honor,  international  righteousness,  and  universal  peace. 


UNIVERSAL  MILITARY  TRAINING 


43 


UNIVERSAL  MILITARY  TRAINING 

OUR  LATEST  CURE-ALL 
by 

OSWALD  GARRISON  VILLARD 
New  York  Evening  Post 

A Delegate-How  about  universal  military  training  after  the 
war? 

Mr.  Lloyd  George — It  is  my  hope,  and  that  is  really  what  we 
are  fighting  for,  that  we  shall  establish  conditions  that  will  make 
com.pulsory  service  unnecessary,  not  merely  in  this  country,  but 
in  every  country.  Unless  we  succeed  in  establishing  those  condi- 
tions, 1 personally  shall  not  feel  that  we  have  achieved  one  of 
the  m.ost  important  of  our  war  aims. 

(London  Times,  January  19,  1918,  account  of  conferences  with 
trade  union  delegates.) 

In  the  years  to  come,  none  of  the  recent  amazing  phenomena 
will,  I am  sure,  cause  greater  wonderment  than  our  recent  dis- 
covery that  universal  military  service  is  the  cure-all  for  every  one 
of  our  American  ills.  Do  we  wish  to  defend  our  country?  We 
have  but  to  adopt  the  system  of  training  every  boy  to  be  a soldier, 
and  the  problem  is  solved.  Do  we  wish  to  become  industrially 
efficient?  Then  let  us  forget  all  about  vocational  training,  but 
give  every  American  a year  under  arms,  and  presto ! we  shall  outdo 
Germany  in  scientific  efficiency  and  management.  Are  our  youth 
lawless  and  undisciplined?  Universal  compulsory  service  will  end 
that  once  for  all.  Is  our  democracy  halting?  It  is  the  tonic  of 
a democratic  army  that  we  need  in  which  all  men  shall  pay  for 
the  privileges  of  citizenship  by  a year  of  preparation  for  poison  gas 
and  of  learning  how  to  destroy  other  human  beings.  Our  melting- 
pot  is  a failure?  Then  let  us  pour  into  it  the  iron  of  militarism, 
and  it  will  fuse  every  element  at  once.  Finally,  if  we  need  an 
Am.erican  soul-and  the  war  has  suddenly  taught  as  that  this 
glorious  country  lacks  a soul ! — it  is  the  remedy  of  universal  mili- 
tary service  that  is  to  supply  our  spiritual  needs  and  give  us  the 
ability  to  feel  as  one,  to  think  as  one,  to  steer  towards  our  des- 
tiny as  of  one  mind,  imperialistically. 

It  is  so  alluring  and  so  entrancingly  easy,  the  wonder  is  that 
we  have  never  thought  of  it  before.  We  saw  it  going  on  in 
France  and  Germany  and  Russia,  but  it  seemed  altogether  repulsive 
in  its  forms.  Americans  to  be  conscripted?  Heaven  forbid.  There 
rose  before  us  the  unutterable  cruelties  of  non-commissioned  offi- 
cers and  some  of  the  officers — visions  of  the  thousands  of  men 
coming  to  our  shores  with  hands  mutilated  to  avoid  the  barracks 
with  their  open  immoralities  their  bitter  hardships,  the  loss  of 
three  years  of  so  many  working  lives.  The  “Red  Rosa,”  Rosa 


44 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  OKLAHOMA 


Luxemburg,  with  her  10,000  authenticated  instances  of  cruelties  to 
German  soldiers,  inflicted  by  their  own  countrymen  behind  the 
screen  of  offxial  authority,  explained  to  us  why  so  many  young 
Germans  emigrated  before  becoming  of  military  age.  In  speak- 
ing of  the  case  of  one  soldier  horribly  abused  at  Met/.,  the  “Red 
Rosa”  declared ; “It  is  certainly  one  of  those  dramas  which  are 
enacted  day  in  and  day  out  in  German  barracks,  although  the 
groans  of  the  actors  never  reach  our  ears.”  When  the  German 
army  sought  to  prosecute  her  it  v/as  announced  that  she  would 
cal  IjCCO  eyewitnesses  to  grievous  abuses  of  military  authority  in 
Germany’s  “democratic”  army,  but  she  went  to  jail  none  the  less. 

(This  particular  case  against  her  was  abandoned  by  the  prosc- 
cut'on.  Editor.) 

II 

in  Genrary,  of  course,  universal  service  is  not  in  the  least 
democratic,  save  that  all  m.ust  serve.  Upon  that  we  can  surely  all 
agree.  The  autocrary  rules  the  army,  and  the  aristocracy  is 
fortressed  by  it.  More  than  one  debate  in  the  Reichstag  has  been 
enlivened  ly  tb.e  bitter  attacks  by  bourgeois  orators  against  the 
favoritism  shown  to  the  Imperial  Guards  and  to  other  fash'onable 
regiments.  There  is  even  a caste  within  a caste,  for  men 
through  the  gymnasia  need  serve  but  one  year.  Those  whose 
fathers  are  too  poor  to  educate  them  thus  must  give  two  years  of 
their  lives  carrying  arms.  The  spirit  of  arrogance  and  aristocracy 
which  the  military  life,  with  its  medieval  code  of  henor,  fosters,  is 
about  as  anti-democratic  as  anything  in  the  world.  Wlien  men, 
merely  by  reason  of  the  coat  they  wear,  deem  themselves  sacro- 
sanct and  especially  priviliged,  even  to  the  extent  of  running  their 
swords  through  civilizans  by  whom  they  fancy  themselves  insulted, 
or  by  preparing  to  turn  their  machine-guns  upon  their  civilian 
fellow-townsmxn,  as  in  Zabern,  it  is  obviously  to  contend  that  the 
system  of  which  they  are  the  products  smacks,  save  in  the  re- 
motest, of  anything  dem.ocratic. 

And  never,  save  in  Russia,  was  there  a better  illustration  of 
the  truth  of  our  own  James  Madison’s  saying  that  “large  armies 
and  heavy  taxes  are  the  best-known  instruments  for  bringing  the 
many  under  the  dominion  of  the  few.”  General  von  Falkcnhayn, 
the  present  Chief  of  Staff  and  War  Mini.ster,  was  not  altogether 
far  from  the  truth  when  he  said  that  but  for  the  army  “not  a stone 
of  the  Reichstag  building  would  remain  in  place,”  provided  we  as- 
sume that  he  meant  to  typify  by  the  Reichstag  building  the  present 
form  of  governmient  in  Berlin.  No  one  need  look  further  than 
the  Russian  system  of  universal  service  for  a complete  reason  for 


UNIVERSAL  MILITARY  TRAINING 


AS 


the  failure  of  the  first  Russian  revolution  of  this  century.  Tlu- 
truth  is  that  men  of  noble  spirit  are  in  every  land  crushed  by  the 
whole  system  of  compulsory  mil'tary  labor  precisely  as  compuisory 
servitude  deadens  men’s  souls  everywhere. 

And  those  Americans  who  see  in  tlie  Frcncli  anry  a perfvCi 
model  for  ourselves  would  do  well  to  forget  neither  the  shock. ng 
revelations  of  graft  which  have  come  to  light  before  and  s nee  the 
war,  nor  the  depths  of  infamy  sounded  by  the  mil  tary  in  tlie 
Dreyfus  case,  nor  the  fact  that  General  Bou’argcr  cam.e  witliin  an 
ace  of  upsetting  the  Republic  he  had  taken  oath  to  preserve.  But, 
we  are  told,  Australia  is  democratic,  quite  like  ourselves,  and 
Australia  has  dedicated  its  youth  to  a training  in  anus  with  much 
resultant  good  in  the  present  campaign.  Why  should  we  not  be  Lke 
Australia?  Surely,  there  is  no  militarism  there.  And  look  at 
Switzerland!  Does  it  not  point  the  way?  Well,  so  far  as  the  latter 
is  concerned,  it  does  not.  There  is  no  comparison  whatever  between 
a little  homogenous  country  of  about  four  millions-homogenous 
despite  the  use  of  three  languages — with  a small  and  extremely 
mountainous  country  to  defend,  and  our  own  vast  continent. 

But  in  one  respect,  the  Swiss  system  does  set  an  adm'rahle  ex- 
ample to  the  United  States:  It  allows  no  general  to  exist  save 
after  the  declaration  of  war.  Its  highest  ouicer  is  a colonel.  No 
major-generals  parade  ^thc  country  urging  “preparedness”;  no 
brigadiers  bewail  the  terrible  fate  that  will  overtake  Switzerland 
if  her  standing  force  is  not  doubled  at  once.  Yet  even  in  Switzer- 
land, if  report  be  true,  there  is  an  anti-army  party,  people  who  com- 
plain that  their  military  business  has  become  ominous  ever  since 
so  many  of  the  3^ounger  officers  have  been  serving  in  the  German 
army  and  become  inbued  with  the  spirit  of  the  Prussian  General 
Staff,  just  as,  according  to  a prominent  Australian,  speaking  in  a 
public  m.eeting  in  London  a few  months  ago,  the  feeling  against 
conscription  of  boys  was  so  intense  in  Australia  that  the  law  com- 
pelling this  servitude  would  have  been  repealed  had  not  the  war 
comie  just  when  it  did.  Perhaps  the  fact  that  in  fifteen  years 
some  22,000  Australian  boys  have  been  punished  for  refusal  to  per- 
form military  service,  or  for  minor  infractions  of  discipline,  a 
large  proportion  by  jail  sentences,  may  have  had  something  to  do 
with  the  growing  feeling  against  it.  As  to  its  merits,  there  is  as 
much  difference  of  military  opinion  in  regard  to  its  work,  as  is 
to  be  found  in  regard  to  the  value  of  our  own  military  forces. 

Ill 

But  let  us  grant  for  the  sake  of  argument  that  there  is  solid 


46 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  OKLAHOMA 


worth  in  the  Australian  and  Swiss  systems  and  less  militaristic 
danger  than  under  any  other.  Would  the  same  hold  true  with 
us?  Australia  is  but  a colony,  unable  to  make  war  by  itself,  con- 
trolled and  protected  by  the  power  of  the  mother  country’s  fleet. 
Switzerland,  by  her  geographical  and  ethnic  situation  and  the 
scarcity  of  her  numbers,  cannot  dream  of  wars  of  conquest.  She 
is  not  a world  power.  She  has  no  colonies,  or  oversea  entangle- 
ments, or  foreign  alliances.  How  different  is  our  situation!  We 
have  powerful  military  cliques,  great  aggregations  of  capital  seek- 
ing outlet  abroad  and  engineered  by  the  same  groups  of  priviligcd 
citizens  who  have  been  behind  the  Six-Power  Chinese  loan,  who  de- 
sire to  exploit  the  Phillipines  for  our  own  benefit,  who  have  set 
up  in  Nicaragua  a government  upheld  to-day  only  by  American  bay- 
onets, who  desire  commercially  to  conquer  the  remainder  of  the 
hemisphere.  We  have  seen  outbursts  of  jingo  passion  in  1849  an4 
1898  marked  by  the  stealing  of  other  people’s  lands.  The  uni- 
versal arming  of  the  nation — what  would  it  not  mean  in  another 
such  period  of  excitement  under  the  rule  of  conscienceless  and  time- 
serving legislators,  or  administrators,  or  by  generals  gone  into 
politics,  with  eyes  ken  only  for  a nation’s  aggrandisement  and  view- 
ing every  question  from  the  standpoint  of  a soldier! 

History  shows  us  clearly  what  it  all  might  mean.  Leaving  aside 
the  fate  of  the  ancient  republics,  should  we  not  recall  what  hap- 
pened to  the  new-born  French  Republic?  The  nation  rushed  to 
arms,  and  out  of  the  hurly-burly  emerged  the  imperial  figure  whicli 
became  the  scourge  of  Europe.  Such  was  the  sudden  transforma- 
tion of  a nation  that  but  a few  years  before  was  imbued  with  the 
spirit  of  liberty,  fraternity,  and  equality,  whose  doctrine  did  per- 
meate all  Europe  to  its  very  lasting  betterment.  But  this  tide  of 
good-will,  this  spirit  of  universal  brotherhood,  was  conquered  by 
the  militaristic  spirit  and  militarism  until  it  became,  not  the  great 
leavening,  leveling  influence  it  should  have  become,  but  a menace 
for  all  the  world  against  which  all  the  nations  of  Europe  were 
compelled  to  unite.  Nov/  we  Americans,  of  course,  think  that 
nothing  of  the  kind  can  happen  to  us — that  we  merely  seek  peace 
and  defend  our  own.  Is  it  utterly  without  significance  that  our 
most  distinguished  Rear  Admiral  goes  up  and  down  the  country 
preaching  that  the  American  flag  shall  be  carried  at  once  to  Cape 
Horn;  that  every  republic  to  the  south  of  us  shall  be  conquered? 
Does  it  mean  nothing  that  the  Navy  League  demands  that  we 
shall  take  what  they  call  “our  rightful  share  of  oversea  trade”  and 
seize  upon  land  which  has  not  already  been  preempted  by  other 
strong  nations  for  colonies  for  the  United  States?  Ts  it  not  true  v/e 


UNIVERSAL  MILITARY  TRAINING 


47 


iire  already  extending  our  governrnent  over  the  Caribbean  by  force 
of  bayonets? 

We  have  one  hundred  millions  of  people;  we  have  neighbors 
on  our  borders  whom  we  could  easily  crush  if  we  chose.  To  the 
south  of  us  a score  of  republics  fear  every  inihtary  move  wc  make. 
It  is  an  histroic  fact  that  even  before  the  war  in  Europe  the  menace 
of  our  rapidly  growing  fleet  was  urged  in  the  Reichstag,  in  the 
British  and  Japanese  Parliaments,  as  the  reason  for  further  in- 
crease of  their  naval  armaments.  Any  introduction  of  universal 
military  servitude  in  the  Western  w^orld  would  send  a chill  over  the 
entire  American  continent  and  be  viewed  with  alarm  by  the  rest  of 
the  world. 

IV 

Assuming  that  we  are  going  to  think  of  nobody  else,  and  to 
blind  our  eyes  to  the  obvious  effects  abroad  of  our  arming — what 
does  universal  service  mean?  If  it  is  to  he  for  one  year,  fully 
seven  hundred  thousand  young  men  wdll  be  annually  withdrawn 
from  productive  labor;  if  it  is  to  be  for  tw'o  years,  and  on  the 
German  m.odel,  our  standing  arm:y  would  he  at  least  a milbon  four 
hundred  thousand,  or  nearly  double  that  of  Germany  in  1914. 
It*  would  mean  so  vast  m.achinery  of  control  and  discipline  that 
no  other  department  could  compare  with  it  in  expense  or  in  the 
multitude  of  its  permanent  employes.  Has  any  one  in  America 
who  is  advocating  universal  service  yet  computed  the  cost,  direct 
or  indirect,  to  the  nation?  If  so,  I have  not  seen  it.  Even  on  the 
dilettante  Swiss  and  Australian  basis,  it  would  be  stupendous.  If 
carried  out  under  federal  supervision,  it  would  enormously  increase 
our  most  favored  class  of  citizens — our  military  and  naval  servants 
— and  their  pension  rolls.  Abroad  the  conscripts  receive  only  a few 
cents  a day  for  their  service,  which  is  practically  unpaid  (in  Turkey, 
even  in  war  time,  the  soldier  gets  but  twenty-five  cents  a month.) 
Would  our  American  youth  stand  for  this  when  our  National  Guard 
has  just  now,  by  skillful  political  influence,  succeeded  in  getting 
itself  on  the  federal  pay-roll — the  first  time  that  men  have  been 
so  paid,  yet  remained  important  political  factors  in  civil  life? 
But  we  need  have  less  concern  with  the  financial  cost  and  the  crea- 
tion of  a dangerous  military  caste  and  the  terrible  burden  of 
taxation  than  with  the  indirect  results. 

For  what  those  do  not  see  who  feel  that  universal  service  is 
what  we  need  to  make  patriots  by  the  million  is  that  the  spirit  of 
universal  servitude,  whether  Australian,  German,  or  Swiss,  makes 
directly  against  the  American  ideal,  for  it  inculcates  blind  obed- 
ience to  the  will  of  others,  subord!nati(  n to  thc.''<e  who  are  masters, 


48 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  OKLAHOMA 


not  necessarily  because  of  superior  wisdom  or  fitness,  but  largely 
because  of  accident.  Heretofore  we  have  always  valued  the 
American’s  self-assertiveness — yes,  his  refusal  to  recognize  masters, 
his  independence  of  thought  and  action,  his  mental  alertness,  par- 
ticularly the  happy-go-lucky  Yankee  initiative  and  individuality,  as 
some  of  his  best  characteristics.  We  hated  the  servile  obedience  of 
the  foreigner.  Indeed  our  whole  American  experiment  was  founded 
as  a protest  against  certain  tendencies  abroad  akin  to  those  we  are 
now  asked  to  make  dominant  by  means  of  universal  service.  The 
manhood  of  our  western  pioneers,  the  daring  spirit  of  those  who 
conquered  the  wilderness  were  our  admiration.  They  might  verge 
on  the  lawless  at  times,  but  militarism  gave  them  nothing  and 
could  add  nothing  to  their  virile  courage  and  their  ability  to  take 
care  of  themselves.  Now  we  are  to  prefer  all  men  cast  in  one 
mould,  drilled  into  one  way  of  thinking,  and  taught  blind  obedience 
to  those  set  above  them.  Formerly,  we  deemed  it  most  worth  while 
that  all  men  should  have  their  own  opinions,  express  them  freely, 
and  if  their  consciences  dictate,  differ  with  their  rulers  if  they 
saw  fit.  The  principle  of  voluntary  military  service  is  directly  con- 
nected with  the  principle  of  freedom  of  conscience  which  led  to  the 
foundation  of  Massachusetts  and  of  Pennsylvania.  Universal  con- 
scription, however  disguised,  by  whatever  foreign  name  it  is 
characterized,  makes  against  freedom  of  conscience  and  drives  men 
into  intellectual  slavery. 

Take  the  education  of  our  boys.  Recently,  at  a joint  meeting 
of  schoolmasters’  associations,  there  were  divided  views  on  some 
issues,  but  none  apparently  as  to  the  utter  lawlessness  of  our 
American  youth  and  the  complete  failure  of  our  private  schools 
to  reduce  them  to  subordination  by  means  of  mental  and  moral 
discipline.  And  so  there  were  many  who  grasped  with  joy  at  the 
universal  military-drill  idea  to  retrieve  for  them  the  ground  lost 
by  their  own  failure  to  do  the  fundamental  thing  they  pledged 
themselves  to  accomplish.  Of  course,  they  knew  little  or  nothlnf 
about  universal  service;  perhaps  it  was  the  unexplored  m.ystery  of 
it  that  appealed.  Many  Americans  are  quite  sure  that  the  latest 
untried  remedy,  be  it  some  law,  or  the  initiative  and  referendum, 
or  the  recall  of  judicial  dicisions,  or  somie  other  panacea,  is,  by 
reason  of  its  very  newness,  just  the  medicine  for  a given  ill  they 
have  been  looking  for.  So  with  these  school  teachers.  Ignoring 
the  fact  that  our  private  military  schools  have  been  anything  but 
popular,  and,  only  in  exceptional  cases,  of  high  standing,  they  turn 
military  drill  as  to  a last  straw.  But  some  of  them  do  not  even 
stop  there;  they  want  everybody  subjected  to  military  service. 


UNIVERSAL  MILITARY  TRAINING 


49 


They  forget  that  to  some  of  their  boys  enforced  military  training 
may  be  as  poison,  and  do  not  inquire  whether  they  are  not  suddenly 
exalting  the  physical  above  the  intellectual.  The  only  thing  that 
stands  out  about  it  is  that  they,  too,  confessing -themselves  and  their 
judgment  failures  heretofore,  are  now  ready  to  take  a leap  into 
the  dark. 

V 

Advocates  of  military  preparedness  are  fond  of  likening  their 
policies  to  the  insurance  policy  upon  our  edifices.  But  there  is  a 
point  beyond  which  no  man  would  increase  his  premiums  upon  any 
given  premises ; he  would  tear  them  down  to  get  a lower  rate 
on  a more  modern  structure,  or  he  would  build  a concrete  struc- 
ture and  do  away  with  insurance  altogether.  So  the  price  of  uni- 
versal military  servitude  is  far  too  great  a price  to  pay  for  in- 
suring peace  by  any  free  peoples.  Its  dangers,  its  contaminating- 
effects,  the  terrible  weapon  it  forges  for  rulers,  its  reducing  men 
to  a dead  level,  far  offset  the  alleged  advantages  which  are  phy- 
sical betterment,  greater  practical  efficiency  and  energy,  and  a sense 
of  responsibility  to  the  nation.  For  all  of  these  things  the  price  of 
compulsory  service  is  too  heavy.  For  it  does  not  train  the  unfit  or 
build  up  the  weak,  and  it  is  not  meant  or  intended  to  increase  effici- 
ency in  civil  life.  Its  primary  purpose  is  to  turn  out  killers,  not 
workers.  It  often  destroys  those  it  would  benefit — no  less  than  ten 
thousand  three  hundred  Germans  conscripts  have  committed  suicide 
in  the  last  thirty  years,  or  at  the  rate  of  one  a day.  There  was  a 
time  when  the  price  of  social  order  was  that  human  beings  should 
go  armed  all  the  time,  when  they  lived  and  ate  and  slept  with 
their  weapons  by  their  sides.  Humanity  was  deemed  to  have  ad- 
vanced itself  from  this  stage  until  the  present  time  has  seen  a re- 
turn to  it  in  the  conscript  armies  of  Europe.  Surely,  if  the  price 
of  each  mian’s  carrying  arms  against  another  was  too  great  to  pay, 
the  social  cost  of  arming  every  man  in  a nation  against  all  the  men 
of  other  nations  is  wholly  beyond  reason  in  the  present  age.  The 
answer  to  the  world’s  difficulties  is  not  the  old  destructive  reaction- 
ary policy  of  arming  to  the  teeth,  but  of  so  building  our  national 
edifices  and  so  relating  them  one  to  the  other  that  we  can  at 
once  by  mutual  organization  of  nations  reduce  the  premiums  to  a 
minimum  or  wipe  them  out  altogether  by  building  a concrete  fire- 
proof structure  of  internationalism — equipped  with  such  I'ghtning 
rods  as  world  courts  and  international  parliaments,  and,  if  needs 
must  be,  an  international  police  force  of  volunteers. 

What  to-day — what  single  thing — would  most  quickly  win  for 
Germany  anew  the  good  will  of  the  world  and  make  possible  the 


50 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  OKLAHOMA 


immediate  coming  of  peace  abroad?  What  else  but  an  announce- 
ment by  Germany  that  hereafter  she  would  forever  abandon  uni- 
versal military.  : service?  The  chief  menace  of  her  militarism, 
against  which  all  the  v/orld  is  roused,  would  disappear  over-night. 
' ' N6,  td  lead  the  world  aright,  the  United  States  ought  not  to 

be  debating  to-day  whether  it  prefers  voluntary  military  training 
or  conscription,  but  how  rapidly  it  can  induce  the  other  nations  by 
precept,  by  example,  by  enlightened  leadership,  to  limit  all  armam- 
ents to  the  dirriensions  of  police  forces.  Fortunately,  there  is  evi- 
dence in  every  land  that  the  world  is  to  be  different  place  when 
the  soldiers  return  from  the  trenches. 

“Compulsory  military  service  is,  therefore,  unwise  and  abso- 
lutely incompatible  with  our  institutions.  We  must  depend  upon 
voluntary  enlistments  for  the  making  of  our  armies.  Our  ser- 
vice must  be  sufficiently  remunerative,  beneficial  and  attractive  to 
draw  men." 

SELF-PRESERVATION  HIGHEST  LAW 
Military  Training  League  of  America 

The  supreme  law  of  life  is  self-preservation.  This  ap- 
plies not  only  to  the  individual  but  to  the  state.  There  can 
be  no  progress,  no  civilization,  no  moral  or  spiritual  develop- 
ment, nor  any  of  the  essentials  that  make  for  the  welfare  of 
the  individual  and  the  up-building  of  the  state,  which  docs  not 
rest  on  the  law  of  self-preservation. 

This  law  carries  with  it  the  duty  of  being  prepared  for  de- 
fense. It  is  the  paramount  duty  of  every  man  to  protect  his 
home  and  to  help  protect  his  country.  This  law  holds  to- 
day and  its  truth  has  been  recognized  in  all  ages  and  by  all 
peoples. 

Turn  to  the  first  chapter  of  Numbers  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment and  you  will  find  that  God  commanded  Moses  to  list 
all  men  of  fighting  strength,  of  twenty  years  and  older  of 
various  tribes. 

In  the  New  Testament  we  find:  “And  he  said  unto  them, 
But  now  he  that  hath  a purse,  let  him  take  it,  and  likewise  a 
wallet;  and  he  that  hath  none,  let  him  sell  his  cloak,  and  buy 
a sword."  Luke,  Chapter  22-36. 

“When  the  strong  man  fully  armed  guardeth  his  own 
court,  his  goods  are  in  peace;  but  when  a stronger  than  he 
shall  come  upon  him,  and  overcome  him,  he  taketh  from 
him  his  whole  armor  wherein  he  trusted  and  divideth  his 
spoils."  Luke,  chapter  11;  21-22. 


UNIVERSAL  MILITARY  TRAINING 


51 


There  is  in  no  country  in  the  world  a more  earnest  de- 
sire for  peace  than  that  in  the  United  States.  Now  war  of 
aggression  would  never  receive  the  support  of  public  senti- 
ment; therefore,  we  need  not  fear  such  a war.  War  is  often 
forced  upon  a people.  We  have  several  recent  examples  of 
it.  The  weaker  a country’s  defense  and  the  greater  its  wealth, 
the  more  probability  there  will  be  of  attack.  There  is  noth- 
ing truer  than  that  in  strength  lies  safety  and  in  weakness  lies 
danger. 

War  today  is  a highly  specialized  art  and  one  in  which  un- 
trained men  count  for  little.  Defensive  military  action  must 
depend  upon  trained  men  in  the  ranks  and  highly  skilled  of- 
ficers in  command.  Universal  military  training  will  pro- 
duce the  one  and  stimulate  the  production  of  the  other. 

Sources  of  Danger 

The  world  is  growing  smaller  year  by  year.  It  took 
our  grandfathers  from  three  weeks  to  three  months  to  cross 
the  Atlantic;  our  time  is  five  days.  International  relations 
are  becoming  complicated  and  there  are  more  sources  of 
danger  now  than  existed  even  a generation  ago. 

We  have  by  a narrow  margin  so  far  (March  1917)  kept 
out  of  the  European  war,  but  as  President  Wilson  recently 
said  :‘With  the  world  on  fire,  and  sparks  flying  every  where, 
we  know  not  what  a day  may  bring  forth.”  tie  certainly  is 
in  a position  to  know.  The  enormous  naval  program  under- 
taken by  our  government  should  satisfy  any  one  that  there  is 
substantial  ground  for  alarm. 

Out  of  the  European  war  our  country  has  made  the 
most  extraordinary  gain  in  wealth  in  the  wordl’s  history.  While 
European  nations  have  been  burning  up  wealth,  we  have  been 
reaping  an  enormous  harvest  from  their  misfortunes.  They 
have  become  envious,  so  no  matter  whether  judged  rightly  or 
wrongly,  as  a nation  today  we  have  few  friends. 

The  following  dispatch  which  appeared  in  the  Chicago 
Daily  News  on  February  14,  from  its  well-known  London 
correspondent,  Edward  Price  Bell,  is  illuminating; 

“London,  February  14,  Flow  any  American  citizen  can 
be  so  blind  to  the  vital  interests  of  his  country  at  this  moment 
as  to  oppose  thorough  going  measures  of  preparedness  is  un- 
intelligible to  persons  in  close  touch  with  the  European 
situation,  German  statesmen,  admirals  and  generals  regard 
America,  though  technically  neutral,  as  an  ally  of  the 
entente,  and  that  they  will  severely  punish  her  if  they  get  an 


52 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  OKLAHOMA 


opportunity  is  believed  to  be  certain.” 

“Americans  abroad  easily  can  understand  why  the  Amer- 
ican nation  should  wish  to  keep  out  of  the  war  if  possible,  par- 
ticularly since  its  neutrality,  owing  to  the  naval  position,  oper- 
ates advantageously  for  the  cause  of  freedom.  But  these 
Americans  cannot  understand  that  there  should  be  any  op- 
position in  the  United  States  to  the  most  rapid  and  thorough 
preparation  possible  to  insure  the  security  of  the  country 
against  every  menace,  now  or  later. 

“It  is  painfully  evident  to  the  best  minds  in  London  that 
international  peace  based  on  agreement  is  a long  way  off.  It 
is  felt  there  is  in  the  future  more  than  one  disturbing  possi- 
bility from  the  point  of  view  of  democracy  and  the  realiza- 
tion is  steadily  becoming  sharper  that  some  method  of  con- 
solidating the  strength  of  the  democratic  nations  must  be  dis- 
covered if  free  civilization  is  not  to  run  the  greatest  risk  of 
destruction.” 

Flere  we  are,  by  all  odds,  the  richest  nation  in  the  world, 
and  we  are  practically  without  defense  worthy  of  the  name. 
We  are  soft,  rich  and  flabby.  Military  experts  agree  that  as 
matters  stand,  any  one  of  a half-dozen  nations  could  land 
large  and  seasoned  armies,  upon  our  shores,  capture  our  sea 
board  cities  and  levy  and  collect  tribute  to  their  heart’s  content. 
There  would  be  nothing  new  in  this.  \ Such  expeditions  have 
been  in  practice  the  world  over  for  thousand  years.  Is 
it  safe  to  assume  human  nature  has  sd|  changed  that  we  are 
immune? 

It  is  common  knowledge  that  we  have  been  on  the  verge 
of  a war  with  Germany  several  times  and  the  situation  is 
growing  worse  daily.  Do  not  assume  that  when  the  Euro- 
pean war  is  over  the  nations  engaged  in  it  will  be  so  exhausted 
they  could  do  us  no  harm.  At  least  five  of  the  nations  in 
Europe  and  one  in  the  Orient  will  have  millions  of  seasoned 
and  highly  trained  soldiers,  and  a navy  equal  or  superior  to 
our  own.  Any  one,  and  certainly  two  of  them,  in  our  help- 
less condition  could  land  large  forces  and  exact  any  terms 
they  desired.  Remember  that  personal  valor,  enthusiasm  and 
patriotism  would  count  for  nothing  against  such  a foe. 

While  our  relations  with  Germany  are  attracting  the  most 
immediate  attention,  there  are  many  far-seeing  conservative 
men  who  do  not  believe  that  is  the  onl3q  if  indeed  it  is  the 
principal  source  of  danger.  Such  men  are  keeping  their  eyes 
on  the  Pacific  as  well  as  on  the  Atlantic,  and  there  is  every 


UNIVERSAL  MILITARY  TRAINING 


53 


reason  why  they  should.  The  outlook  is  far  from  reassuring. 
The  Mexican  and  Cuban  complications  may  at  any  moment, 
become  of  far-reaching  consequences. 

The  Monroe  Doctrine  in  the  opinion  of  many  thoughtful 
men  is  becoming  a menace  and  at  any  hour  may  involve  us  in 
trouble.  There  are  many  ways — here  is  one  of  them: 

Hundreds  of  millions  of  property  belonging  to  the  citizens 
of  foreign  countries  have  been  destroyed  in  Mexico,  scores 
of  foreign  citizens  massacred  and  thousands  of  them  driven 
from  the  country  in  the  v^^arfare  that  has  existed  there  for 
several  years.  Lender  the  Monroe  doctrine,  we  assumed  the 
Mexican  problem.  Other  countries  stepped  aside  and  the 
losses  occured.  Under  this  doctrine  no  nation  is  permitted 
to  take  the  usual  steps  to  compel  restitution,  such  as  land- 
ing military  forces  upon  Mexican  soil,  closing  its  ports  or 
taking  possession  of  the  custom  houses.  In  view  of  this,  is 
there  any  substantial  reason  from  the  foreign  viewpoint  why 
we  should  not  pay  these  losses? 

Many  authorities  believe  we  are  morally  and  probably 
legally  liable  for  them;  but  suppose  the  half  dozen  nations 
whose  citizens  have  suffered  should  present  their  claims  to 
us  and  demand  payment,  what  would  we  do?  Suppose  one 
or  more  countries  should  decide  to  ignore  the  Monroe  Doctrine 
and  go  into  Mexico  to  collect  their  claims;  suppose  one  of 
them  should  establish  a naval  base  upon  Mexican  soil — say 
Magdalena  Bay — where  it  could  control  the  Panama  Canal, 
what  would  we  do  about  it? 

Suppose  these  or  other  demands  were  made  upon  us  to 
which  We  could  not  yield.  Let  us  remember  two  things  in 
this  connection: 

1.  War  does  not  depend  upon  the  disposition  of  the 
pacific,  but  upon  that  of  the  bellicose.  • 

2-  That  unless  our  country  puts  itself  in  a position  to 
defend  its  rights,  we  may  soon  have  no  rights  to  defend. 

George  Washington  said,  “To  be  prepared  for  war  is  one 
of  the  most  effectual  means  of  preserving  peace.’’  The 
truth  of  the  statement  is  borne  out  by  history  and  by  experi- 
ence. Had  Great  Britain  been  prepared  on  land,  as  she  was 
on  sea;  had  she  had  a trained  citizenry  of  four  millions  of  men, 
as  she  was  compelled  to  have  after  the  European  war  broke 
out,  it  is  the  belief  of  many  that  the  present  war  would  not 
have  been  started.  What  Great  Britain’s  unpreparedness  at 
the  beginning  of  the  war  cost  her,  is  now  apparent  to  all. 


54 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  OKLAHOMA 


In  view  of  this  experience,  is  it  not  criminal  for  a nation  to 
wait  until  war  has  actually  been  declared  before  making  pre- 
paration? General  Henry  Lee  of  Washington’s  army  said, 
“A  government  is  the  murderer  of  its  citizens  which  sends 
them  to  the  field  for  battle  uninformed  and  untrained  where 
they  are  to  meet  men  trained  for  battle.” 

Military  authorities  agree  that  if  Washington’s  army  had 
been  well-trained  and  properly  equipped,  the  Revolutionary 
War  would  have  been  over  in  a year,  instead  of  lasting  seven 
years. 

A strong,  trained  and  virile  manhood  must  be  built  up 
and  maintained  if  our  country  is  to  hold  its  proper  position 
in  the  sisterhood  of  nations.  By  military  training  the  nation 
will  be  provided  with  the  most  intelligent,  country-loving  citi- 
zen-soldiery anywhere  to  be  found.  It  costs  too  much  blood 
and  tears,  too  much  waste  and  suffering  to  wait  until  a crisis 
is  upon  us  and  then  prepare.  The  state  of  being  uprepared  in- 
vites attack.  Strength  through  preparation  means  peace.  A 
boy  may  kick  a cur,  but  he  will  not  kick  a bull  dog — there 
is  a reason.  With  universal  military  training  the  probability 
of  war  would  be  diminished  to  the  vanishing  point. 

Will  Military  Training  Satisfy  the  Nation? 

History  records  the  rise  and  fall  of  nations  and  shows 
that  strength,  virility  and  the  ability  to  defend  themselves  were 
essentials  of  national  existence.  When  nations  have  be- 
come opulent  and  indolent,  when  extravagance  displaced  thrift, 
and  indulgence  weakend  moral  fiber,  then  relaxation  and  decad- 
ence followed.  An  armed  foe  and  subjugation  completes  the  story. 
Security  lies  in  strength;  weakness  is  a source  of  danger  in 
the  life  of  a nation  as  it  is  in  the  life  of  an  individual. 

We  have  been  accustomed  to  think  that  our  country,  isola- 
ted by  two  wide  oceans,  needed  no  other  defense.  Modern 
science  has  destroyed  that  isolation.  Submarine  ships  from 
other  lands  have  already  entered  our  harbors.  The  airship  is 
the  practical  certainty  of  tomorrow. 

In  universal  military  training  we  have  the  best  assurance 
of  peace  that  can  be  effectuated  and  the  only  one  that  would 
serve  us  in  case  of  war.  In  such  training  our  country  would 
take  the  wisest  course  and  insure  the  safety  and  prosperity 
of  the  people.  War  may  never  be  forced  upon  us,  but  there 
is  always  the  danger  that  it  will  be.  Fire  may  never  des- 
troy your  home,  but  there  is  danger  of  it,  hence  the  wise  in- 


UNIVERSAL  MILITARY  TRAINING 


55 


sure.  In  the  construction  and  equipment  of  buildings  -we 
spend  large  sums  to  reduce  the  fire  hazard.  So  military  train- 
ing reduces  the  likelihood  of  war.  It  will  give  us  over 
500,000  trained  men  per  year  or  2,500,000  men  in  five  years. 
When  the  world  knows  we  have  this  splendid  body  of  loyal 
citizens  that  may  at  once  become  efficient  soldiers,  together 
with  our  incomparable  financial  and  physical  resouces,  any 
nation  will  hesitate  before  attacking  us. 

Voluntary  Military  Service  A Delusion 

Experience  shows  that  in  a prolonged  war  voluntary  en- 
listments are  never  sufficient  and  that  conscription  must  be 
resorted  to.  This  was  true  of  our  own  country  in  the  Civil 
War  when  patriotism  was  at  flood-tide  and  a similar  condition 
prevails  in  England  today.  There  is  always  a large  and 
honorable  number  willing  to  die  to  save  the  nation  and  quite 
a large  and  dishonorable  number  who  are  willing  to  let  them 
do  it.  A volntary  system  of  military  defense  puts  a penalty 
on  patriotism  and  a premium  on  cowardise. 

At  the  threshold  of  consideration  let  us  keep  in  mind  that 
the  government  has,  and  has  always  had,  absolute  power  to 
call  for  military  service  every  able  bodied  man  in  the  land  be- 
tween eighteen  and  forty-five  years  of  age.  There  is  no 
escape  and  no  excuses  will  avail. 

The  law  of  required  service  is  the  foundation  of  the  family, 
the  state  and  the  nation.  In  these  relations  duties  arc  not 
optional;  they  are  obligatory.  Children  must  obey  their  par- 
ents and  do  as  directed  or  the  family  will  be  a failure.  No 
government,  dependent  upon  voluntary  action,  would  have  sta- 
bility. In  a Republic,  the  duty  of  all  is  to  serve  and  sup- 
port the  government,  each  according  to  his  ability.  We  are 
required  to  pay  taxes,  to  do  jury  service  and  to  send  our 
children  to  school.  For  the  safety  of  the  community  we  are 
compelled  to  observe  health  regulations.  These  and  scores 
of  other  provisions  necessary  for  the  common  good  must  be 
compulsory. 

A Story  in  Point 

A lad  of  fourteen,  returning  from  the  Boy  Scout  encamp- 
ment at  Plum  Island,  at  dinner  observed  his  younger  broth- 
er in  an  ill-tempered  mood.  The  father  and  mother  both 
attempted  to  discipline  him  but  without  success.  After  con- 
siderable argument  a compromise  was  effected  and  the  quarrel 
was  concluded.  When  it  was  over,  the  boy  scout  asked  to 


56 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  OKLAHOMA 


see  his  father  privately.  W hen  they  were  alone,  he  said, 
“Dad,  I do  not  wish  to  be  impertinent  or  butt  in,  but  I tell  you 
that  the  discipline  in  this  family  is  rotten.  I have  learned 
what  discipline  means,  and  I think  it  should  be  established  in 
this  family.”  It  was. 

There  has  never  been,  and  there  never  can  be  good  citizen- 
ship, good  order,  and  good  government  without  laws  that 
will  require  every  individual  to  do  his  share,  to  carry  his  part  of 
the  burden,  and  to  discharge  his  obligation  whatever  it  may  be. 

There  is  nothing  fair  about  a volunteer  system.  Univer- 
sal training  coupled  with  obligation  to  serve  if  needed,  is  only 
the  square  deal  in  democracy  and  will  produce  the  only  suf- 
ficient defense.  Democracy  means  the  rule  of  the  majority 
and  the  service  of  all.  Anything  less  is  not  democracy.  To 
permit  some  citizens  to  shirk  their  duty  because  they  want 
to,  and  let  others  defend  the  country  because  they  are  will- 
ing is  undemocratic.'  All  need  and  demand  protection.  All 
should  help  to  defend. 

Military  training  should  not  be  confused  with  military  ser- 
vice. The  larger  the  number  of  men  trained  the  greater  will 
be  our  strength  and  less  will  the  probability  of  actual  service 
being  required.  We  cannot  evade  the  obligation  to  defend 
the  country  by  failing  to  train,  but  by  thorough  training  and 
being  strong  and  ready  we  probably  would  escape  war. 

In  a word,  the  more  trained  men  we  have  available  for  the 
defense  of  the  flag,  the  less  the  probability  that  we  shall  be 
called  upon  to  defend  it.  Under  our  conditions  today,  mili- 
tary training  is  more  a preparation  for  peace  than  it  is  for 
war. 

What  Will  It  Do  For  Manhood 

Every  well-informed  person  knows  that  military  training 
develops  a boy  physically  as  nothing  else  will.  After  train- 
ing he  stands  erect,  head  up,  and  chest  out;  he  knows  how- 
to walk;  it  gives  him  a manly  bearing,  a fine  lung  develop- 
ment, hardens  his  muscles  and  makes  him  alert  and  responsive. 
It  teaches  obedience  to  authority  and  respect  for  the  right.'; 
of  others.  It  emphasizes  courtesy  and  good  breeding.  It 
teaches  him  how  to  take  care  of  himself  physically  and  grow 
into  strong  manhood. 

The  physical  regeneration  of  this  country  and  the  bene- 
fits to  the  fathers  of  the  future  cannot  be  overestimated.  Mili- 
tary training  will  arrest  decadence  into  which  we  are  drifting 
and  will  build  up  our  national  life.  Six  months’  intensive 


UNIVERSAL  MILITARY  TRAINING  57 

military  training,  such  as  proposed,  is  equal  to  eighteen  months 
in  the  regular  army  under  peace  conditions. 

There  is  another  exceedingly  important  feature:  It  will 

bring  together  young  men  from  all  parts  of  the  country  and 
from  all  walks  of  life,  the  rich  and  the  poor,  from  the  homes 
of  affluence  and  the  homes  of  poverty.  It  will  put  these  men 
into  the  same  uniform,  into  the  same  tents,  and  train  them  for 
the  defense  of  the  country.  This  close  relationsip  will  make 
for  the  common  good,  and  most  assuredly  integrate  us  into  a 
nation,  break  down  barriers,  remove  misconceptions,  sweep 
away  erroneous  preconceived  ideas,  establish  friendships,  give 
a wider  horizon,  a truer  viewpoint,  and  cause  all  to  realize 
that  there  is  here  a government  to  which  we  owe  an  obligation 
and  that  it  must  be  met. 

There  is  a commercial  value  to  this  training.  For  the 
purpose  of  ascertaining  this  definitely,  the  writer  took  the 
matter  up  with  about  one  hundred  large  employers  of  young 
men  and  all  virtually  agreed  that  any  young  man  taking  this 
training  would  be  a better  employee,  more  dependable,  more 
alert  and  would  have  greater  initiative,  better  judgment  and 
greater  physical  strength  than  an  untrained  lad.  They  said 
they  would  give  a young  man  who  had  been  thus  trained  the 
preference  over  the  untrained  man,  other  things  being  equal. 
There  was  no  sentiment  about  it.  It  was  a cold-blooded 
proposition.  Their  conclusions  compositely  stated  were  that 
such  training  was  of  so  much  value  to  the  young  man  that 
it  would  pay  him  to  take  it  even  if  there  were  no  probability 
of  war. 

Universal  military  training  is  the  one  effective  melting-pot 
for  the  making  of  real  Americans  and  real  men. 

Boys  Need  Discipline 

The  American  boy,  probably  more  than  any  other,  needs 
discipline.  He  must  be  taught  to  respect  authority  and  made 
to  feel  a sense  of  responsibility.  Too  many  are  drifting  aim- 
lessly. The  poolrooms,  the  dance  halls,  and  “just  loafing” 
sends  tens  of  thousands  to  ruin  every  year. 

The  venerable  Bishop  Samuel  Fallows,  who  for  twenty- 
one  years  was  the  head  of  the  great  Illinois  State  Reformatory 
at  Pontiac,  said  before  the  United  States  Senate  Committee 
which  was  considering  the  question  of  military  training,  that 
such  training  would  have  made  it  unnecessary  to  commit  at 
75  percent  of  the  boys  in  that  institution.  The  Bishop  is  an 


58 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  OKLAHOMA 


authority.  He  enlisted  at  the  outbreak  of  the  Civil  War  as  a 
private  and  earned  his  way  to  a position  of  brigadier-general. 
He  is  now  the  head  of  the  Army  of  Tennessee,  the  successor 
to  Gerneral  Sherman  and  General  Dodge. 

In  concluding  his  statement  he  said : “Such  training  will 
save  three  bad  boys  out  of  four  and  make  them  worthy  citizens 
and  it  will  make  good  boys  better.  Such  training  will  make  a 
boy  manly,  more  courteous  and  physically  stronger.  It  will 
harden  his  muscles,  give  him  greater  lung  capacity  and  the 
ability  to  re'sist  disease.” 

Suppose  you  make  a list  of  twenty  of  the  young  men  of 
your  acquaintance.  Look  over  the  list.  How  many  of  them 
would  be  able  to  step  into  the  ranks  at  once  as  efficient  de- 
fenders of  their  country?  Probably  not  one  could  do  so. 
How  many  of  them  would  be  greatly  benefited  by  the  disci- 
pline that  goes  with  military  training,  by  the  uniform  courtesy 
required,  the  respect  for  authority,  the  promptness  of  action, 
the  manly  bearing  and  the  physical  and  mental  vigor  that 
comes  from  such  training?  Intensive  training  keeps  the  boy 
busy  and  federal  control  of  surroundings  would  give  those 
training  a protection  not  found  under  usual  camp  conditions. 

Are  We  Prepared? 

Frederic  L.  Huidekoper  in  “The  Military  Unpreparedness 
of  the  United  States”  says,  “The  fundamental  law  of  life  is  the 
law  of  strife  and  in  the  supreme  test,  ‘might’  nearly  always 
prevails.  The  American  people  have  but  two  alternatives, 
either  to  profit  by  the  lessons  taught  every  day  by  the  present 
European  struggle  and  thus  avert  the  horrors  inseparable 
from  war,  or  to  learn  these  lessons  by  the  bitterest  experience 
which  human  beings  can  undergo.  Which  shall  it  be?* 

“Adequate  preparation  for  war  has  never  yet  in  history 
been  made  after  the  beginning  of  hostilities  without  horrible 
slaughter,  unjustifiable  expense,  and  national  peril.  It  is 
only  in  the  years  of  peace  that  a nation  can  be  made  ready  to 
fight.” 

The  world  is  being  remade  in  the  awful  cauldron  of  war. 
What  of  the  future?  No  one  can  tell.  The  world  is  full 
of  hate  and  envy.  The  brotherhood  of  man  in  the  federation 
of  the  world  is  still  a dream.  If  we  prepare  for  the  worst, 
it  is  probable  that  the  worst  will  not  come. 

Under  prevailing  conditions,  there  should  not  be  a doubt  in 
the  minds  of  anyone  that  as  a nation  we  are  in  a perilous  posi- 


UNIVERSAL  MILITARY  TRAINING 


59 


tioa.  It  is  a condition  and  not  a theory  that  confronts  us. 
We  know  that  our  country  today  is  in  no  position  to  defend  it- 
self against  attack  from  any  one  of  a dozen  leading  nations. 
Our  navy  is  barely  half-manned  and  the  ranks  of  our  army 
are  crumbling.  It  is  entirely  obvious  that  something  must  be 
done  to  protect  ourselves  and  insure  our  peace  and  tranquillity. 

Every  well-informed  person  knows  that  our  country  today 
is  in  no  position  to  make  an  effective  defense  against  even  a 
second  or  third  rate  power.  The  Mexican  border  patrol  and 
the  chase  of  Villa  required  practically  all  of  our  military 
resources.  There  are  many  things  to  be  done  before  our  coun- 
trv  will  be  safe.  The  doing  of  one  of  these  is  the  purpose  of 
this  organization,  namely:  To  bring  about  a sane  and  sen- 
sible plan  of  military  training  and  have  it  maintained  as  a fix- 
ed policy  of  our  government. 

Good  Advice  From  Great  Educators 

Dr.  Henry  Pratt  Judson,  President  of  the  University  of 
Chicago,  an  eminent  scholar,  a close  observer,  and  one  who 
has  spent  months  in  the  Orient,  in  a notable  address  before 
the  City  Club  of  Chicago,  January  19,  1917,  among  other  things 
said: 

“Formerly  I believed  that  this  was  a day  of  progress  and 
civilization  in  the  world,  that  it  was  a time  when  international 
disputes  could  be  settled  in  accordance  with  principles  of  jus- 
tice and  right;  when  smaller  nations  might  pursue  their  hon- 
est destinies  with  respectful  treatment  from  might}''  powers, 
but  my  ideas  have  undergone  a change. 

“It  is  apparent  that  there  are  great  powers  which  classify 
as  national  pirates.  They  are  nations  which  deliberately  in- 
tend to  take  possession  of  other  nations  in  accordance  with 
their  deliberate  piratical  policies  whenever  their  might  enables 
them.  In  the  face  of  such  policies,  it  is  apparent  that  the 
United  States  is  in  danger  of  attack.  The  United  States  is  a 
rich  and  helpless  people  and  a piratical  attack  could  be  made 
with  ease  against  us  in  our  unpreparedness. 

“These  attacks  by  these  piratical  nations  not  only  cau 
happen  but  will  happen  unless  the  United  States  wakes  up  to  a 
realization  of  her  helplessness  and  the  propensity  of  foreign 
nations  which  brush  aside  right  and  justice  in  the  pursuit  of 
their  piratical  policies. 

“There  is  absolute  need  of  military  preparedness  and  uni- 
versal military  training  being  taken  up  without  delay.” 


60 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  OKLAHOMA 


Dr.  Charles  W.  Eliot,  President  Emeritus,  Harvard  Uni- 
versit}’’,  noted  educator,  and  a profound  thinker,  in  “The 
World’s  Work”  for  November,  1917,  says: 

“Steam  and  electricity  have  done  away  with  the  physical 
isolation  of  the  United  States.  The  oceans  are  not  barriers, 
but  highways  which  invite  the  passage  of  fleets,  pacific  or 
hostile.  The  security  of  America  can  no  longer  be  trusted 
to  the  width  of  the  Atlantic  and  Pacific.”  He  says  further: 

“The  only  available  insurance  is  a navy,  powerful  in  every 
respect,  and  an  army  of  reserve  visibly  strong  in  numbers  and 
visibly  prepared  for  immediate  service.” 


THE  EFFECTS  OF  MILITARY  DRILL  ON  BOYS 

DUDLEY  A.  SARGENT,  M.  D. 

Director  of  the  Hemcnway  Gymnasium,  Harvard  University. 

Cambridge,  Mass. 

To  select  at  once  a system  of  exercise  that  will  do  no  harm 
to  any  one,  and  yet  be  beneficial  to  all,  is  a difficult  task,  yet  we  shall 
come  nearer  doing  the  greatest  good  to  the  greatest  number  if  we 
follow  what  ma}'’  be  termed  the  physiological  method.  As  near  as 
I have  been  able  to  ascertain  them,  the  essential  requisites  of  a 
good  exercise  may  be  sum.med  up  in  the  following  suggestions: 

1.  The  person  should  be  sufficiently  interested  in  the  exercise 
to  give  it  his  attention  in  order  to  secure  the  necessary  volitional 
power  to  start  the  movement.  Any  exercise  executed  in  a lifeless 
way  is  of  little  benefit  to  nerve  or  muscles  in  a healthy  condition. 

2.  There  should  be  a weight  or  resistance  to  overcome  in 
order  to  bring  out  the  working  force  of  the  muscle,  the  theory 
being  that  the  mmscles  were  not  created  merely  to  move  the  parts 
to  which  they  are  attached,  but  to  do  service  and  help  man  bear  hi.s 
burdens. 

3.  The  exercise  must  be  performed  with  sufficient  vigor  and 
rapidity  to  engage  the  energetic  contraction  of  the  muscles  em- 
ployed. When  this  is  done,  old  tissue  is  brokn  down,  and  its 
place  is  supplied  with  new  material  in  increased  quantity,  thus 
augmenting  the  size  and  strength  of  the  muscles.  The  rapidity  of 
the  movement  puts  a limit  to  the  weight  used,  and  the  alternate 
contraction  and  relaxation  of  the  muscles  assist  the  circulation  of 
the  blood  in  the  parts  employed. 

4.  As  many  muscles  as  possible  must  be  brought  into  action  in 

order  to  secure  a well-orbed  and  harmonious  development  of  the 
whole  body 


UNIVERSAL  MILITARY  TRAINING 


61 


5.  A sufficient  number  of  muscles  sliould  be  called  into  action 

at  one  time  to  stimulate  the  action  of  the  heart  and  lungs,  and  in- 
crease the  circulation  and  respiration.  This  is  one  of  the  most 
important  considerations  to  bear  in  mind  in  regard  to  exercise 

The  chief  advantage  of  exercises  that  give  employment  to  many 
muscles  at  one  time  is  that  by  increasing  the  respiration  and  quick- 
ening the  circulation,  they  improve  the  health  and  strength  of  all 
parts  of  the  body. 

6.  As  a “latent  period”  precedes  the  contraction  of  the  muscle, 
so  a momentary  period  of  rest  should,  as  far  as  possible,  precede 
movement  in  exercise.  This  is  best  secured  where  there  is  an  alterna- 
tion in  the  movements,  as  in  walking,  running,  rowing,  etc.  All 
tetanized  movements,  such  as  holding  weights,  standing  in  a 
constricted  position,  etc.,  tend  to  inspair  the  tone  of  the  muscles 
by  interefring  with  the  nutrition  of  both  muscles  and  nerves. 

7.  The  exercises  of  the  young  should  be  of  such  a composite 
nature  as  to  bring  about  the  co-operation  and  co-ordination  of 
the  muscles.  This  involves  principally  the  training  of  the  central 
nerve  system.  All  gymnastic  sports  and  athletic  games  that  re- 
quire skill,  dexterity,  coolness,  courage,  and  presence  of  mind,  are 
included  in  this  list,  and  are  exceedingly  valuable  to  any  system  of 
physical  training,  as  adjuncts  in  the  development  of  character. 

My  prinicpal  objection  to  military  drill  as  a physical  exercise  is 
that  it  does  not  to  any  extent  meet  the  physiological  demands  of 
the  body  as  set  forth  in  the  seven  observations  just  referred  to. 
In  other  words : It  is  not  of  sufficient  interest  as  a means  of  physical 
development  to  arouse  any  moral  earnestness  and  enthusiasm  on 
the  part  of  the  boys.  The  exercise  of  the  manual  is  not  per- 
formed with  sufficient  force  and  rapidity  to  engage  the  energetic 
contraction  of  the  muscles  employed.  It  is  essentially  a one-sided 
exercise,  bringing  into  excessive  action  the  elevators  of  the  right 
scapula,  the  deltoid,  biceps,  flexors  of  the  fore-arm,  wrist  and 
fingers  of  the  right  side,  while  the  other  muscles,  excepting  the 
legs  on  parade  days,  do  not  get  sufficient  employment  to  keep 
them  in  good  condition.  It  does  not  increase  the  respiration  and 
quicken  the  circulation  to  a sufficient  extent  to  secure  the  consti- 
tutional benefits  that  should  accure  from  exercise. 

During  the  drill  the  clothing  is  buttoned  close  around  the 
chest,  and  natural  respiration  is  hindered.  The  muscles  are  not 
alternately  contracted  and  relaxed,  but  are  tetanized  or  kept  in  a 
state  of  prolonged  tension.  This,  as  we  have  seen,  not  only  im- 
pairs the  tone  of  the  muscles  used,  but  it  also  puts  an  addition.tl 
strain  upon  the  brain  and  nervous  system  at  a time  when  both 


62 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  OKLAHOMA 


should  be  as  much  relieved  as  possible.  Finally,  the  mere  exercise 
of  the  manual  of  arms  does  not  give  sufficient  breadth  and  scope 
of  movement  to  secure  the  co-operation  of  the  muscles,  and  as  a 
training  for  the  central  nerve  system,  it  is  of  little  or  no  value. 

Coolness,  courage,  presence,  of  mind,  and  that  rapid  and  res- 
ponsible exercise  of  judgment  in  emergencies,  so  valuable  to  the 
man  of  business,  as  well  as  to  the  soldier,  are  not  developed  by 
the  drill  itself,  though  I will  admit  that  other  normal  attributes, 
such  as  obedience,  practice,'  fortitude,  and  forbearance,  may  be 
])rought  into  a high  degree  of  perfection.  The  community  at  large 
have  long  entertained  the  idea  that  there  was  something  about 
military  drill  that  made  young  men  erect,  or,  as  the  committee  have 
been  pleased  to  term  it,  giving  them  a graceful  and  manly  bearing. 

I dislike  to  take  from  the  drill  one  of  the  strongest  attributes 
that  has  commended  it  to  parents  and  teachers,  but  unless  I have 
been  misled  in  my  observations,  there  is  nothing  in  the  drill  itself 
that  tends  to  make  one  erect  or  graceful.  On  the  other  hand,  I am 
prepared  to  maintain  that  it  tends  to  make  him  stiff  and  angular 
in  his  moments,  as  well  as  to  droop  and  round  his  shoulders. 

This  was  long  since  brought  to  the  attention  of  military 
authorities,  and  a set  of  calisthenic  exercises  or  free  gymnastics 
has  been  incorporated  into  all  of  the.  treatises  on  military  tactics, 
to  correct  the  tendency.  I refer  to  what  is  familiarly  known  as  the 
“setting-up”  drill 

In  reference  to  the  gracefulness  that  is  thought  to  characterize 
the  movements  of  young  cadets,  I can  only  say  it  is  not  the  out- 
come of  drilling  and  marching.  The  soldier  is  trained  to  square 
corners,  straight  platoons,  and  angular  movements.  Curves  and 
embellishments  are  not  encouraged  in  speech  or  in  action.  If  you 
would  account  for  the  graceful  poise  of  our  National  cadets,  you 
must  visit  West  Point  in  summer,  and  see  them  for  one  or  two 
liours  a day  in  charge  of  the  dancing  master. 

Those  who  have  had  the  pleasure  of  examining  school  boys, 
or  of  looking  over  their  measurements  or  photoplays,  will  bear 
me  out  in  saying  that  the  strong  and  well  developed  boys  are 
largely  in  the  minority. 

The  pupils  attending  our  public  and  private  schools  represent 
nearly  every  phase  and  condition  in  life.  Some  are  well  nurtured, 
others  are  not.  Some  have  favorably  hygienic  surroundings  at  home, 
others  are  subjected  to  unhealthy  influences.  All  bear  the  stamp 
of  a good  or  bad  inheritance,  and  the  strong  and  weak  points  show 
themselves  in  the  physique  as  readily  as  they  do  in  mental  char- 
acteristics  


UNIVERSAL  MILITARY  TRAINING 


63 


My  attention  was  long  since  called  to  what  I think  may  i j 
termed  the  prevailing  weakness  or  defects  in  the  school  boys’  and 
student’s  physique. 

There  are  a drooping  of  the  head,  flatness  of  the  chest,  nar- 
rowness of  the  waist,  and  an  exaggeration  of  the  normal  or  phy- 
siological curves  of  the  spine,  and  I might  add  to  this  number, 
though  it  is  not  quite  so  common  in  boys  as  in  girls,  lateral  cur- 
vature of  the  spine.  These  defects,  I say,  are  so  apparent,  that 
it  does  not  take  a practised  eye  to  detect  them  . They  attract  the 
attention  at  once  or  any  one  v/ho  cares  to  examine  the  figures.  . . 

Personally,  I do  not  put  particular  stress  upon  these  malforma- 
tions, if  they  can  be  discovered  in  time.  Nearly  all  of  them  can 
be  corrected  by  judicious  exercise.  If  allowed  to  increase,  how-- 
ever,  they  invariably  lead  to  spinal  disease,  or  to  some  functional 
disturbance  of  the  heart,  stomach,  or  lungs,  followed  sooner  or 
later  by  structural  changes  in  these  important  organs. 

Whatever  the  original  cause  of  these  physical  defects  may 
be,  the  immediate  cause  is  a weakness  of  the  supporting  muscles. 

After  the  body  has  once  acquired  a bias  in  the  wrong  direction 
many  exercises  otherwise  beneficial  are  likely  to  be  injurious. 
Among  this  number  are  horseback  riding,  rowing,  lawn  tennis,  and 
military  drill 

After  taking  the  m.ost  favorable  view  of  military  drill  as  a 
physical  exercise,  we  are  led  to  conclude  that  its  constrained 
positions,  and  closely  localized  movements  do  not  afford  the  essen- 
tial requisites  for  developing  the  muscles,  and  improving  the  res- 
piration and  circulation,  and  thereby  improving  the  general  health 
and  condition  of  the  system.  We  must  further  conclude  that  in 
case  of  any  malformation,  local  weakness  or  constitutional  debility, 
the  drill  tends,  by  its  strain  upon  the  nerves  and  prolonged  ten- 
sion on  the  muscles,  to  increase  the  defects  rather  than  to  relieve 
them. 

Finally,  if  the  ultimate  object  of  the  drill  was  to  prepare 
young  men  for  the  life  and  duties  of  a soldier,  we  should  be 
forced  to  conclude  that  the  drill  itself  would  still  be  defective  as  a 
means  of  developing  the  chief  requisites  for  men  in  that  profes- 
sion. 

This  defect,  we  are  pleased  to  state,  is  recognized  by  the 
great  military  nations  of  Europe,  and  measures  are  taken  to  give 
all  recruits  from  three  to  twelve  months’  gymnastic  training  to 
develop  them  as  men,  before  they  are  expected  to  conform  to 
the  requirements  of  the  soldier. — Extract  from  article  in  Boston 
Medical  and  Surgical  Journal. 


64. 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  OKLAHOMA 


FIRST  SIX  PRESIDENTS  URGED  COMPULSORY 
MILITARY  TRAINING 

Extracts  from  Messages  of  Washington,  Adams,  Jefferson, 
Madison,  Monroe,  and  Jackson 

Washington 

In  his  first  annual  address  to  congress, Pres  ident  Wash- 
ington, after  a few  introductory  sentences,  drove  straight  to 
the  subject  of  national  defense. 

“Among  the  many  interesting  objects  which  will  engage 
your  attention,”  said  the  president,  “that  of  providing  for  the 
common  defense  will  merit  particular  regard.  To  be  pre- 
pared for  war  is  one  of  the  most  effectual  means  of  preserv- 
ing peace. 

“A  free  people  ought  not  only  to  be  armed,  but  disciplined; 
to  which  end  a uniform  and  well-digested  plan  is  requisite; 
and  their  safety  and  interest  require  that  they  should  promote 
such  manufactories  as  tend  to  render  them  independent  of  others 
for  essential,  particularly  military,  supplies.” 

Washington’s  Plan  for  Universal  Military  Training 

Thirteen  days  later  Washington  addressed  a brief  message 
to  congress,  accompanied  by  plans  for  universal  military  train- 
ing. “Conceiving  the  subject  to  be  of  the  highest  importance 
to  the  welfare  of  our  country,”  said  Washington,  “I  have 
directed  him  (the  secretary  of  war)  to  lay  the  plan  before  con- 
gress.” 

With  characteristic  modesty  Washington  gave  credit  for 
these  plans  to  his  secretary  of  war.  General  Henry  Knox,  but 
Major  Henry  C.  Davis  of  the  United  States  Marine  corps,  af- 
ter a study  of  “American  State  Papers,”  finds  that  Washing- 
ton directed  its  preparation  and  materially  amended  it  himself 
before  giving  it  to  congress.  It  had  his  enthusiastic  approval, 
and  he  declared  that  “It  is  a capital  security  to  a free  state 
for  the  great  body  of  the  people  to  possess  competent  know- 
ledge of  military  art.” 

Here  is  the  general  scope  of  the  plan  as  condensed  from 
Vol.  1,  “American  State  Papers:” 

All  citizens  between  18  and  60,  with  specific  exceptions, 
to  be  enrolled  for  different  degrees  of  military  duty  and  divided 
into  three  distrinct  classes:  the  youth  of  18,  19  and  20  years  of 
age,  the  advanced  corps;  the  men  from  21  to  45  years  of  age,  the 
main  corps;  the  men  from  46  to  60  years  of  age,  the  reserve 
corps. 


UNIVERSAL  MILITARY  TRAINING 


65 


Right  to  Vote  Acquired  by  Military  Training 

“The  advanced  corps  are  designed  not  only  as  a school  in 
which  the  youth  of  the  United  States'  are  to  be  instructed 
in  the  art  of  war,  but  they  are,  in  all  cases  of  exigence,  to  serve 
as  an  actual  defense  of  the  community.  The  whole  of  the 
armed  corps  shall  be  clothed,  armed  and  subsisted  at  the  ex- 
pense of  the  United  States,  and  encamped  together  if  prac- 
ticable, or  by  legions,  which  encampments  shall  be  denomin- 
ated the  annual  camps  of  discipline.  The  youth  of  18  and  19 
years  shall  be  disciplined  for  30  days  successively  in  each 
year;  and  those  of  20  years  shall  be  disciplined  only  for  10  days 
in  each  year,  which  shall  be  the  last  10  days  of  the  annual  en- 
campment.” 

Under  this  plan  Washington’s  military  training  and  ser- 
vice were  to  be  the  price  paid  by  the  citizen  for-  the  right  to 
vote  and  hold  public  office.  Having  rendered  the  required 
service  the  young  man  was  to  be  given  a certificate  of  full  and 
honorable  citizenship,  and  without  that  certificate  he  could  not 
vote  or  hold  any  position  of  public  preferment. 

Congress  failed  to  enact  the  Washington  bill,  but  passed 
instead  the  militia  law  of  1792,  which  affirmed  the  principles  of 
universal  liability  to  military  service,  but  neglected  to  put  that 
principle  into  effect.  It  declared  that  every-able  male  citizen 
between  the  ages  of  18  and  45  was  a member  of  the  militia. 
Those  voluntarily  enrolling  and  training  were  termed  the  or- 
ganized militia  and  the  great  body  of  untrained  citizenship 
the  unorganized  militia. 

Adams 

John  Adams,  second  president,  followed  Washington’s  ex- 
ample and  urged  that  congress  strengthen  the  country’s  de- 
fenses. In  a special  message,  session  of  May  16,  1797,  Adams 
said:  “As  our  country  is  vulnerable  in  other  interests  besides 
those  of  its  commerce  you  will  seriously  deliberate  whether 
the  means  of  general  defense  ought  not  to  be  increased  by  an 
addition  to  the  regular  artillery  and  cavalry  and  by  arrange- 
ments for  forming  a provisional  army.  With  the  same 
view,  and  as  a measure  which  even  in  a time  of  universal  peace 
ought  not  to  be  neglected,  I recommend  to  your  consideration 
a revision  of  the  laws  for  organizing,  arming  and  disciplining 
the  militia,  to  render  that  natural  and  safe  defense  of  the  coun- 
try efficacious.” 

President  Adams  here  was  referring  to  the  whole  militia 
of  the  Union — all  able-bodied  men  between  the  ages  of  18  and 


66 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  OKLAHOMA 


45.  He  wanted  them  to  be  organized,  drilled  and  disciplined, 
and  to  that  end  called  on  congress  to  pass  additional  legisla- 
tion. 

Jefferson 

President  Jefferson  felt  earnestly  the  need  of  compulsory 
training  and  military  service.  With  his  own  hand  he  drafted 
a bill  in  1805  “for  classing  the  militia  and  assigning  to  each 
class  its  particular  duties.*’  (Writings  of  Thomas  Jefferson, 
Federal  edition,  volume  10,  page  213.) 

Jefferson’s  bill  provided  that  “every  free,  able-bodied  white 
male  citizen  of  the  LTnited  States  of  the  age  of  18  years  and 
under  the  age  of  45,  whose  principal  occupation  is  not  on 
the  high  seas  or  the  tidewaters  within  the  United  States,  shall 
be  of  the  militia  for  the  land  service  of  the  United  States.” 

Jefferson  wanted  to  classify  the  militia  into  four  classes; 
those  above  18  and  under  21,  the  minor  class;  those  above  21 
and  under  26,  the  junior  class;  those  above  26  and  under  35, 
the  middle  class,  and  those  above  35  and  under  45,  the  senior 
class. 

But  Jefferson’s  advice-  was  rejected^,  as  Washington’ts 
counsel  had  been  neglected.  There  were  pacificists  in  those 
days,  and  they  raised  constitutional  objections.  The  Union 
was  still  looked  upon  by  many  as  a loose  confederation  of  sov- 
ereign states,  and  local  prejudices  were  turned  against  Jeffer- 
son’s plan  as  a thing  too  ultra  federal. 

Jefferson  retired  to  private  life  and  the  country  went 
rashly  unprepared  to  war  with  Great  Britain  in  1812.  It  was 
a humiliating  war  for  the  United  States.  Our  poorly  trained 
militia  ran  off  one  field  after  another  and  abandoned  the  •na- 
tional capital  to  an  inferior  force  of  British  soldiers.  We 
glimpse  conditions  from  a letter  written  by  Jefferson,  Septem- 
ber 9,  1814,  to  John  Wayles  Eppes: 

“If  our  government  ever  fails  it  will  be  from  this  weak- 
ness. No  government  can  be  maintained  without  the  prin- 
ciple of  fear  as  well  as  of  duty.  Good  men  will  obey  the 
last,  but  bad  ones  the  former  only.  Our  country  is  a desert. 
None  are  to  be  met  in  the  roads  but  grayheads.  About  800  men 
are  gone  from  it,  and  chiefly  volunteers.  But  I fear  they 
cannot  be  armed. 

“I  think  the  truth  must  now  be  obvious,  that  our  people 
are  too  happy  at  home  to  enter  into  regular  service,  and  that 
we  cannot  be  defended  but  by  making  every  citizen  a soldier, 
as  the  Greeks  and  Romans,  who  had  no  standing  armies. 


UNIVERSAL  MILITARY  TRAINING 


67 


and  that  in  doing  this  all  must  be  marshaled,  classed  by 
their  ages  and  every  service  ascribed  to  its  competent  class.” 

Madison 

A belief  has  long  been  extant,  fostered  by  false  repre- 
sentations in  school  histories  and  the  flamboyant  oratory  of 
Fourth  of  July  speakers,  that  the  militia  forces  of  the  United 
States  drove  the  British  armies  before  them  as  the  November 
blasts  scatter  the  frosted  leaves  of  autumn.  The  painful 
truth  is  that  our  poorly  drilled  and  imperfectly  disciplined 
militia  did  a lot  of  running  from  numerically  inferior  forces 
of  the  enemy  and  were  whipped  in  nearly  every  engagement  of 
that  war. 

Only  the  good  fortune  that  England  was  at  war  with 
France  and  that  Madison’s  administration,  thoroughly  humili- 
ated by  our  military  reserves,  was  taking  steps  to  organize 
and  train  much  larger  forces,  induced  England  to  accept  the 
war  as  a draw  and  negotiate  the  peace  treaty  of  Ghent. 

This  war  was  fought  in  the  administration  of  Madison, 
and  Madison’s  last  annual  message  to  congress  discloses  his 
honest  judgment  about  the  inefficiency  of  the  militia. 

“As  a subject  of  the  highest  importance  to  the  national 
welfare,”  said  Madison’s  message  of  December  3,  1816,  “I  must 
again  earnestly  recommend  to  the  consideration  of  congress  a 
reorganization  of  the  militia  on  a plan  which  will  form  it  into 
classes  according  to  the  periods  of  life  more  or  less  adapted 
to  military  service.  An  efficient  militia  is  authorized  and 
contemplated  by  the  Constitution  and  required  by  the  spirit 
and  safety  of  free  government. 

“The  present  organization  of  our  militia  is  universally 
regarded  as  less  efficient  than  it  ought  to  be  made,  and  no  or- 
ganization can  be  better  calculated  to  give  to  it  a due  force 
than  to  give  to  it  a due  classification  which  will  assign  the  fore- 
most place  in  the  defense  of  the  country  to  that  portion  of  its 
citizens  whose  activity  and  animation  best  enable  them  to 
rally  to  its  standard.  Besides  the  consideration  that  a time  of 
peace  is  the  time  when  the  change  can  be  made  with  the  most 
convenience  and  equity,  it  will  now  be  aided  by  the  experience 
of  a recent  war  in  which  the  militia  bore  so  interesting  a part.” 

Note  Madison’s  studied  use  of  the  word  “interesting.” 
With  the  sorry  record  of  the  war  immediately  behind  him,  he 
could  not,  in  honesty  of  speech,  say  the  militia  had  borne  a 
“gallant,”  an  “honorable”  or  even  a “distinguished”  part. 


68 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  OKLAHOMA 


But  congress  was  again  supine  and  nothing  was  done  to 
heed  the  wise  counsels  of  Madison  and  his  predecessors.  The 
old  defective  militia  law  of  1792  was  allowed  to  stand,  and  it 
stands  substantially  today. 

Monroe 

President  Monroe  added  his  plea  to  the  plans  of  Wash- 
ington, Adams,  Jefferson,  and  Aladison.  “As  the  defense  and 
even  the  liberties  of  the  country,’  he  said  in  a message  to 
congress,  “depend  in  times  of  imminent  danger  on  the  militia, 
it  is  of  the  highest  importance  that  it  be  well  organized,  armed 
and  disciplined  throughout  the  Union.’’ 

Here  again  Monroe  was  speaking  of  the  whole  militia  of 
the  nation — the  unorganized  citizenry  between  the  ages  of  18 
and  45. 

Jackson 

President  Jackson,  reiterated  the  counsel  of  Washington. 
Adams,  Jefferson,  Madison,  and  Monroe.  He  urged  that  the 
whole  body  of  the  militia  be  organized  and  classified  for 
training  and  liability  to  service: 

“A  classification  of  the  population,”  said  President  Jack- 
son  in  his  message  of  December  7,  1835,  “offers  the  obvious 
means  of  effecting  this  organization.  Such  a division  may 
be  made  as  will  be  just  to  all  by  transferring  each  at  a proper 
period  of  life  from  one  class  to  another  and  by  calling  first 
for  the  service  of  that  class,  whether  for  instruction  or  action, 
which  from  age  is  qualified  for  the  duty  and  may  be  called 
to  perform  it  with  the  least  injury  to  themselves  or  the  public. 

“Should  the  danger  ever  become  so  imminent  as  to  require 
additional  force  the  other  classes  in  succession  would  be  ready 
for  the  call.  And  if  in  addition  to  this  organization  voluntary 
associations  were  encouraged  and  inducements  held  out  for 
their  formation  our  militia  would  be  in  a state  of  efficient  ser- 
vice. 

“Now,  when  we  are  at  peace,  is  the  proper  time  to  digest 
and  establish  a practicable  system.  The  object  is  certainly 
worth  the  experiment  and  worth  the  experience.  No  one  ap- 
preciating the  blessing  of  a republician  government  can  ob- 
ject to  his  share  of  the  burden  which  such  plan  may  impose. 
Indeed,  a moderate  proportion  of  the  national  funds  could 
scarcely  be  better  applied  than  in  carrying  into  effect  and  con- 
tinuing such  an  arrangerrient,  and  in  giving  the  necessary 
elementary  instruction.’ 


UNIVERSAL  MILITARY  TRAINING 


69 


VARIOUS  OPINIONS 
David  Starr  Jordan,  From  “War  and  the  Breed” 

The  objections  to  Military  Training  as  part  of  a general 
education  are  mainly  three.  The  one  is  that  such  training 
is  on  the  whole  highly  specalized  for  ' a particular  profession, 
and  that,  war.  The  second  is  that  the  martial  spirit  or  spe- 
cific bias  v/hich  this  training  gives  to  some  degree  unfits  its 
possessor  to  consider  justly  the  affairs  in  which  this  nation  is 
concerned.  It  tends  to  exaggerate  that  perverted  form  of 
patriotism  expressed  in  words  “rny  country,  right  or  wrong”.  . 

. . . A third  objection  is  that  military  drill  is  in  the  hands  of 
non-commissioned  officers,  in  general  with  no  fitness  for  teach- 
ing, while  its  value  as  exercise  is  far  inferior  to  that  of  a well- 
appointed  gymnasium,  or  even  of  an  ordinary  athletic  field. 

Col.  Thomas  F.  Edmands:  “In  Boston  the  effect  of  school 
drill  has  been  to  make  boys  round  shouldered  and  narrow 
chested.  I.  never  saw  a school  company  well  set  up  in  my 
life.  Except  a few  of  the  larger  ones  the  boys  are  overweight- 
ed by  the  musket  they  are  obliged  to  carry.” 

“The  modern  drill  regulations  are  by  no  means  adapted 
for  work  in  the  schools  under  any  circumstances.  They  need 
a man’s  brains  and  muscle.  Every  time  I tell  the  truth  about 
the  matter,  I generally  raise  a storm  from  persons  illy  inform- 
ed upon  the  subject,  and  from  the  boys,  whose  self-conceit  en- 
gendered by  this  drill,  should  be  one  of  the  greatest  arguments 
against  its  further  practice.” 

Frederic  L.  Huidekoper:  “General  Henry  Lee  (Light 

Horse  Harry),  a distinguished  officer  during  the  Revolution, 
epitomized  the  matter  admirably  when  he  asserted  that  ‘A 
Government  is  the  murderer  of  its  citizens  which  sends  them 
to  the  field  uninformed  and  untaught  where  they  are  to  meet 
men  of  the  same  age  and  strength,  mechanized  by  education 
and  discipline  for  battle.” 

Military  Training  in  Our  Public  Schools 
Military  training  has  not  enough  educationl  value  to  re- 
place any  subject  that  rightfully  belongs  in  the  school  courses 
of  study.  This  objection  is  approved  by  Prof.  John  Dewey, 
Pres.  Henry  Churchill  King  of  Oberlin  College,  Ex-Pres.  Char- 
les W.  Elliot  of  Harvard  University,  Ex-Governor  Charles  E. 
Hughes  and  Ex-Secretary  of  .State  Gen.  John  W.  Foster, 

The  supposed  benefits  of  military  training  can  be  secured 
more  effectively  by  other  means,  viz.:  The  gymnasium,  out- 


70 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  OKLAHOMA 


door  games  and  athletics.  This  statement  is  supported  by 
such  expert  testimony  as  that  of  Dr.  Dudley  Sargent,  head  of 
the  Hemenway  Gymnasium,  Harvard  University,  Prof.  Reich- 
art  of  the  University  of  Pennsylvania,  Dr.  Nathan  C.  Schaeffer, 
State  Superintendent  of  Schools,  Pennsylvania,  Prof.  Charles 
Zueblin,  and  Dr.  David  Starr  Jordan.  Moreover,  the  sup- 
posed benefits  of  military  drill  are  due  not  to  the  system  but 
to  the  personality  of  the  particular  instructor. 


It  is  not  a burden  on  the  individual  but  a duty  owing  to  the 

State 

Luke  E.  Wright:  “The  fact  is  that  the  volunteer  is  not 
a reliable  soldier,  and  any  people  that  leans  upon  him  leans 
upon  a broken  reed. 

“The  volunteer  system  is  a failure.  It  is  wrong  in  prin- 
ciple and  it  is  bad  in  practice.  No  people  have  ever  been  able 
to  fight  a long  continued  war,  to  endure  a strain  upon  all  their 
resources,  under  the  volunteer  system.  The  fact  is  that  the 
Confederacy  in  our  Civil  War  thought  they  could  lick  the 
Yankees  in  just  a year;  they  gave  themselves  ample  margin; 
and  so  they  enlisted  their  own  men  for  twelve  months.  The 
twelve  months  expired  and  they  were  mistaken,  woefully  so; 
and  thereupon  by  a conscripting  act  all  of  those  twelve  month 
men  were  simply  blanketed  into  the  army  for  the  rest  of  the 
v/ar. 


Advantages  Are  Numerous 

C.  E.  Calkins,  in  “Cyclopoedia  of  American  Government,” 
Vol.  2,  Page  439 

“The  military  advantages  of  an  automatic  system  which 
makes  every  class  of  the  population  bear  a part  in  national  de- 
fense are  incontestable.  Not  only  does  it  provide  for  an 
ample  standing  army  during  peace  and  perpetuate  the  mili- 
tary tradition,  but  it  provides  a practically  unlimited  reserve 
of  trained  soldiers  in  the  prime  of  life.  Thus  all  the  ex- 
travagance and  disorder  of  hurried  recruiting,  the  bounties  for 
volunteering  and  the  irritating  enforcement  of  conscription, 
are  avoided.  The  army  is  mobilized  for  war  by  filling  the 
ranks  of  the  existing  organization,  without  sending  improvised 
regiments  or  companies  to  the  front;  and  no  command  is 
trusted  to  an  untrained  officer.” 


UNIVERSAL  MILITARY  TRAINING 


71 


With  Civic  Duty  Goes  Military  Duty  and  Upon  Both  Our 
Existence  Depends 

From  an  address  by  John  Purroy  Mitchel,  former  Mayor  of 
New  York  City 

“We  are  passing  today  through  a great  crisis  in  our  na- 
tional life.  The  issue  is  more  than  national;  it  is  as  broad  as 
the  human  race  itself.  Into  our  hands  here  has  been  com- 
mitted the  heritage  of  democratic  government.  It  is  our 
trust  to  perpetuate  it,  to  develop  it,  to  transmit  it  to  posterity, 
a serviceable  agent  for  the  advancement  of  civilization  and  for 
the  happiness  of  mankind.  Here  in  this  nation  and  country 
of  ours  the  efficiency  of  democracy  is  on  trial  today.  Here 
under  our  free  institutions  through  one  hundred  and  thirty 
years  of  effort  and  progress,  we  have  developed  governmental 
and  civic  efficiency.  We  teach  our  citizens  the  sense  of 
individual  civic  responsibility,  and  they  respond  to  it.  During 
the  greater  part  of  the  time,  due  to  geographical  location  and 
the  absence  of  hostile  motives  abroad,  we  have  enjoyed  peace. 
Now  that  science  has  obliterated  distance  and  our  prosperity 
and  commerce  supply  the  motive,  we  can  no  longer  count  upon 
an  effective  peace.  Democracy,  therefore,  must  meet  the 
new  conditions.  But  through  its  elementary  sufficiency  for 
self-preservation  we  must  teach  our  citizens  that  with  civic 
duty  goes  military  duty,  and  that  both  are  obligations  on  which 
the  life  of  the  state  depends.” 

Labor’s  Attitude 

Samuel  Gompers  declares  in  favor  of  training  for  defense  of 

the  nation 

“We  must  have  a preparation  that  means  a comprehensive 
development  of  all  the  powers  and  resources  of  all  our  citi- 
zens. In  Switzerland  every  man  is  a soldier — not  necessari- 
ly to  go  to  war — but  he  has  the  physical  and  manual  training 
necessary  to  defend  himself,  his  family,  and  his  country.  Un- 
der that  system  the  Swiss  have  developed  a manhood,  a charac- 
ter, that  challenges  the  admiration  of  the  world.  We  will 
be  satisfied  with  nothing  less  in  America. 

“We  must  see  to  it  that  the  great  mass  of  the  farmers 
and  the  workers  in  industry  shall  be  thoroughly  trained  and 
organized.  We  must  see  to  it  that  the  military  and  naval 
forces  of  the  country  are  controlled  in  the  interests  of  peace, 
of  justice,  of  democracy,  and  of  humanity. 

“There  must  be  industrial,  commercial,  political,  social. 


72 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  OKLAHOMA 


moral,  as  well  as  military  defense.  Citizen  soldiery  must  be 
established,  and  extended.  It  must  be  democratically  organ- 
ized, officered,  and  controlled.  We  must  put  an  end  to  the 
present  wasteful  and  unfair  administration  of  our  military  af- 
fairs." 

Dr.  Nathan  C.  Schaeffer:  And  since  military  training,  as 
the  authorities  quoted  state,  has  not  enough  educational  value 
to  replace  any  other  subject,  and  since  the  supposed  benefits 
may  be  effectively  secured  by  other  accessible  practical  sys- 
tems, and  since  one-half  of  the  school  population  is  wholly 
ignored  by  this  system,  it  therefore  seems  to  be  perfectly  clear 
that  the  educational  value  of  military  training  is  practically 
nil,  and  should  have  no  place  in  our  school  courses. 

Years  ago,  English  schools  tried  military  training  and 
finding  it  physically  harmful  gave  it  up;  French  schools  did 
the  same. 

To  adopt  military  training  in  our  schools  would  be  con- 
trary to  our  national  traditions  and  national  ideals;  there- 
fore, it  would  be  undemocratic  and  unAmerican.  It  would  out- 
Prussianize  Prussia,  for  neither  the  Prussians  nor  Germans 
have  as  yet  been  so  steeped  in  militarism  as  to  burden  their 
regular  schools  with  the  incubus  of  military  training — Prof. 
John  Dewey,  Dr.  Nathan  Schaeffer  and  Pres.  John  H.  Find- 
ley of  New  York  State  University. 

Military  training  in  the  public  schools  fosters  a spirit  of 
suspicion  and  distrust  of  other  nations.  Acting  on  the  fic- 
titious plea  of  “National  Necessity,"  a “National  Enemy"  must 
be  found.  This  engenders  international  hatred — a long  step 
toward  war. 

Charles  E.  Hughes:  Military  training  in  the  public 

schools  is  not  necessary  in  order  to  teach  patriotism  or  to 
provide  for  national  defense.  Military  training  may  lead 
to  efficiency  on  the  parade  ground  or  to  skill  at  target  practice, 
but  it  does  not  develop,  necessarily,  the  spirit  of  patriotism. 
Real  patriotism  is  of  the  spirit — a quality  of  mind  and  heart, — 
hence  it  is  not  acquired  by  evolutions  on  the  drill  ground  or 
by  shooting  at  a target.  True  patriotism  grows  out  of  char- 
acter. It  requires  a patriot  to  live  a clean,  strong  life  for  his 
country.  We  can  no  longer  look  to  war  for  the  develop- 
ment of  either  national  or  individual  character. 

Prof.  G.  M.  Stratton:  From  “The  Double  Standard  in 
Regard  to  Fighting."  The  moral  danger.  The  laws  of  the 
community  and  of  the  State  forbid  the  boy  to  carry  arms. 


UNIVERSAL  MILITARY  TRAINING 


73 


He  knows  that  the  man  who  assaults  his  fellowman  with  a 
deadly  weapon  is  tried  in  court  for  his  liberty  and  his  life. 
He  goes  to  Sunday  School  and  learns  the  command,  “Thou 
shalt  not  kill.”  He  attends  church  and  hears  that  he  “must 
do  unto  others  as  he  would  have  others  do  unto  him,”  and 
he  joins  the  cadet  corps  and  is  trained  with  gun  and  sword 
in  the  art  of  killing  his  fellow-men ! Then  we  wonder  why  out- 
boys  have  such  hazy  ideas  on  moral  questions!  We  wonder 
why  our  boys  are  so  often  lacking  in  clear  vision,  cleat- 
reasoning,  and  right  acting!  God  pity  and  help  us  to  sec 
the  wrong  we  are  inflicting  on  the  youths  of  the  land  by 
advocating  military  training  for  rnere  boys ! 

Maj.  Gen.  Leonard  A.  Wood,  commanding  the  department 
of  the  east,  testified  before  the  senate  committee; 

“If  the  policy  of  Knox  and  General  Washington  had  been 
approved  the  chances  are  we  would  have  had  no  war  of  1812;  and 
if  we  had  had  it,  we  would  have  held  Canada  after  a short  cam- 
paign. If  we  had  had  that  policy  the  civil  war  would  have  been 
imoossible.  The  uprising  would  have  been  crushed  in  the  bud. 

“I  think  you  have  to  drive  home  that  principle  of  general  mili- 
tary obligation  and  general  military  training.  I think  that  is  the 
basis  of  the  whole  thing.  Once  you  get  that  basis  you  can  bring 
I'-our  regular  arm.y  down  to  a pretty  small  limit.  We  should  estab- 
lish a condition  under  which  the  greatest  possible  number  of  men 
are  trained,  and  once  trained,  return  to  their  normal  occupations, 
and  only  enough  m.en  m.aintained  with  the  colors  for  the  every-day 
needs  of  the  nation,  no  more. 

“Whether  they  like  it  or  not,  men  realize  that  the  principle  is 
sound.  A man  cannot  exercise  the  suffrage  as  a right  and  assume 
that  he  has  the  privilege  of  deciding  whether  or  not  he  is  to 
render  service  in  case  of  necessity****. 

“The  volunteer  system  as  a system  has  been  a dismal  failure 
in  every  war  we  have  engaged  in  and  always  will  be.  The  good 
men  will  go  first,  then  volunteering  will  stop,  as  it  did  in  the  revolu- 
tion and  1812,  and  in  the  civil  war  v/hen  we  went  to  the  draft.  We 
never  filled  our  call  for  the  Spanish  war  even.  It  is  a rotten  sys- 
tem. The  spirit  is  fine,  but  the  system  is  unsound  and  spells  dis- 
aster if  we  ever  go  into  a real  war  with  it*****.  There  has  been 
no  equality  of  service.  The  rich  when  drafted  have  been  able  to 
buy  the  poor  to  take  their  places.  The  result  has  been  a debauchery 
of  public  morals  on  the  subject  of  each  and  every  man’s  obliga- 
tion to  service  in  time  of  war.  We  have  never  in  our  entire  ser- 
vice waged  single-handed  a war  with  a first-class  country,  and  we 


74 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  OKLAHOMA 


have  not  the  slightest  conception  of  what  war  would  mean  with 
an  organized  and  prepared  nation,  and  it  is  principally  with  pos-* 
sible  war  with  such  a nation  that  we  are  concerned.” 

From  a Letter 

“Every  thoughful  man  must  feel  that  as  the  world  is  con- 
stituted no  nation  is  safe  nor  does  its  flag  command  respect 
unless  it  is  in  a position  to  defend  itself  and  the  rights  and  in- 
terests of  its  people.  Lack  of  preparedness  invites  attack 
and  insures  disaster,  while  adequate  means  of  defense  on  land 
and  sea  is  the  best  possible  insurance  for  peace  that  can  be 
written. 

“In  a democracy  security  rests  upon  an  appreciation  by  the 
people  of  the  basic  principle  that  equality  of  opportunity  goes 
hand  in  hand  with  equality  of  obligation  within  the  limits  of  our 
physical  and  mental  capacity;  that  we  must  share  and  share 
alike  the  benefits  and  privileges  as  well  as  the  grave  respon- 
sibilities and  duties  of  citizenship. 

“As  matters  now  stand  I feel  that  the  most  important 
question  before  our  country  today  is  adequate  preparedness 
and  that  this  must  be  based  upon  universal  military  training; 
a training  which  will  provide  a reasonably  effective  citizen- 
soldiery.  This  training  must  apply  to  all  young  men  who 
are  physically  fit.  Such  training  if  carried  on  under  a system 
similar  to  that  in  effect  in  Australia  or  Switzerland  will  not 
interfere  with  the  instruction  of  our  youth,  but  will  supple- 
ment it. 

“The  training  proposed  by  the  plan  submitted  by  you  is 
in  accordance  with  the  best  thought  of  the  day  on  this  sub- 
ject and  will,  so  far  as  the  individual  is  concerned,  turn  out  a 
better  man  physicall3%  intellectually,  and  morally;  it  will  make 
him  a better  man  from  the  economic  standpoint  because  of 
habits  of  promptness,  thoroughness  and  exactness.  He  will 
be  a better  all  round  citizen.  It  will  give  him  that  self-con- 
trol, respect  for  the  flag,  for  the  authorities  and  for  the  rights 
of  others  which  are  so  much  needed.  It  will  serve  to  impress 
upon  him  a sense  of  his  responsiblity  towards  the  nation  and 
teach  him  to  think  in  terms  of  the  nation  rather  than  in  terms 
of  the  individual  or  locality.  It  will  tend  to  national  solid- 
arity. It  will  make  America  what  she  must  be,  a real  melting 
pot,  fusing  the  various  unassimilated  elements  into  one  mass 
of  real  Americans. 


UNIVERSAL  MILITARY  TRAINING 


75 


Col.  E.  F.  Glenn,  U.  S.  General  Staff 
Australian  Mothers  Like  the  Result 

“I  inquired  personally  very  carefully  into  the  conditions  that 
confronted  Australia  and  also  as  to  how  they  worked  it  out.  I 
found  that  there  was  great  opposition  on  the  part  of  the  mothers 
of  the  country  to  the  introduction  of  this  as  a compulsory  measure. 
You  understand  that  in  Australia  it  commenced  about  1903,  and 
their  compulsory  law  was  passed  in  1909,  to  become  effective  in 
1911.  After  this  had  been  in  operation  as  a compulsory  measure 
for  two  years,  and  is  so  today,  from  every  source  that  I can  get 
information  from,  you  could  not  drive  it  out  of  Australia  on  ac- 
count of  the  objection  of  the  mothers.  They  all  actually  insist 
upon  it,  and  they  insist  upon  it  not  from  the  military  point  of 
view — far  from  it;  they  insist  upon  it  because  of  the  civil  bene- 
fits.” 


War  Costs  too  Much 

War  is  the  most  terrible  calamity  that  can  overtake  a nation. 
Not  only  does  it  rob  a country  of  the  flower  of  its  manhood 
and  cause  untold  human  suffering  and  misery,  but  in  a mone- 
tary sense,  it  is  the  most  destructive  agency  known  to  mankind. 

Again  quoting  Mr.  Huidekoper  as  authority,  we  find  that: 
The  cost  of  the  Civil  War  to  the  North,  plus  pensions  paid  to 
date,  is  almost  ten  billions  of  dollars. 

This  stupendous  amount  does  not  include  private  losses 
or  destruction  of  property,  the  interest  paid  on  the  war  debt 
or  the  losses  incurred  by  the  southern  confederacy.  If  these 
were  included,  it  probably  would  be  double  the  amount,  and 
the  end  is  not  yet. 

In  the  three  Indian  wars,  the  Seminole,  Blackhawks,  and 
Florida  campaigns  to  suppress  about  four  thousand  redskins, 
the  cost  was  over  $83,000,000  or  more  than  $20,000  for  every 
single  Indian! 

The  awful  debt  so  rapidly  piling  up  because  of  the  Euro- 
pean war  will  hang  as  mill  stones  around  the  necks  of  millions 
yet  unborn  in  these  unhappy  countries.  The  expense  to 
Great  Brittain  alone  is  more  than  $28,000,000  a day.  In  view 
of  this  should  we  not  do  all  that  is  possible  to  insure  our 
country  against  war  and  do  it  by  the  only  way  known  to  man 
or  approved  by  experience,  namely,  to  develop  strength,  readi- 
ness and  ability  quickly  to  meet  and  vanquish  any  foe  that 
might  attack  us?  If  strong  and  ready,  no  nation  will  trouble 
us.  Let  our  motto  be,  “Defense  not  Defiance.” 


76 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  OKLAHOMA 


BRIEF  PARAGRAPHS 

We  should  never  wait  again  till  the  emergency  is  upon 
us  before  we  begin  to  prepare.  No  one  w^ould  think  of  advo- 
cating such  a policy  in  any  other  affair  of  life;  why  do  it  in 
national  affairs? 

The  real  preparation  for  modern  war  is  not  in  drilling 
soldiers.  It  is  in  providing  armament ; equipment,  supplies 
which  are  necessary  to  make  an  army  effective.  It  is  admitted 
that  we  cannot  do  the  latter;  then  why  do  the  former? 

The  Great  War  demonstrated  that  we  could  drill  an  army 
in  six  months  that  was  equal  to  the  best  that  Germany  had. 
We  should  keep  a standing  army  large  enuf  to  hold  any  enem}^ 
at  bay  till  we  can  train  a new  army.  This  provides  for  our 
defense;  we  do  not  need  an  army  for  offense. 

The  safety  of  every  nation  depends  on  its  defenders,  its 
soldiers.  The  negative  cannot  promise  us  any  miracles  to 
offset  or  compensate  for  lack  of  common  prudence  and  com- 
mon sense.  To  send  men  into  modern  battle  untrained  is  to 
slaughter  them  by  thousands  and  then  not  secure  protection. 

It  is  enuf  to  ask  our  young  men  to  rd.lly  to  their  country's 
defense  when  there  is  need  of  it.  Why  should  one  part  of 
the  people  put  an  intolerable  burden  on  another  part  when 
there  is  no  need  for  it?  When  w^e  wish  ^ thing  done  in  a 
democracy  w'e  convince  the  majority  that  it  should  be  done. 
Arguments  are  the  only  weapon  in  a free  country. 

Every  young  man  is  at  sea  for  a year  or  two  after  he 
graduates.  Many  are  uncertain  as  to  what  their  life  work  will 
be,  and  many  who  have  decided  cannot  find  a desirable  open- 
ing. A year  or  two  of  military  training  w'ould  be  a God 
send  to  such  young  men.  They  would  not  only  lose  nothing 
but  the  time  they  are  now  losing  would  be  profitably  used. 

The  fact  is  beyond  controversy  that  young  men  do  not  want 
universal  military  training.  It  is  compulsory  in  Australia  and 
the  year  before  the  war  there  were  22,143  prosecutions  of 
young  men  for  refusal  to  drill;  the  population  of  Australia  is 
less  than  that  of  Ohio.  The  overwhelming  majority  of  those 
who  favor  universal  military  training  are  those  who  know  they 
won’t  have  to  take  it. 

The  affirmative  claim  that  because  our  boys  rallied  under 
the  selective  draft  to  the  nation’s  defense  when  they  saw  there 
was  need  of  it,  that  therefore  they  would  rally  also  in  time 
of  peace  when  there  is  no  need.  There  is  all  the  difference 
in  the  wo*-M  between  the  two  conditions.  The  very  fact  that 


UNIVERSAL  MILITARY  TRAINING  77 

they  wish  to  make  it  universal  or  compulsory  shows  that  they 
know  that  the  young  men  do  not  want  it. 

In  the  last  war,  the  only  criticism  of  our  soldiers  wa'^ 
that  they  were  too  brave;  that  they  exposed  themselves  too 
much.  They  were  cool,  resourceful  and  skdlfui  in  battle ; 
equal  to  the  finest  soldiers  in  the  world.  A few  months  drill 
had  given  them  all  that  universal  military  training  could  have 
given  them.  Two  years  of  military  training,  as  the  militarists 
demand  \vould  have  been  enormous  waste. 

We  already  have  nearly  4, COO, COO  young  men  Vv’ho  have 
already  had  cixcellent  military  training.  They  can  be  mobi- 
lized in  a few  weeks  at  any  time  they  may  be  needed.  Half 
of  these  young  men  will  be  under  thirty  ten  3^ears  from  now. 
Why,  then,  should  we  be  in  such  a hurry  to  get  universal  mili- 
tary training  started?  It  is  as  clear  as  an^^thing  under  the 
sun  that  we  will  not  need  it  for  a number  of  ^^ears. 

Since  we  have  had  so  many  men  in  militar}^  training  re- 
cently, for  some  3^ears,  perhaps,  hot  much  will  be  required.  It 
is  a most  excellent  and  favorable  time  to  begin  such  a policy. 
All  v/e  shall  need  is  to  keep  up  what  has  been  gained  b}"  those 
of  military  age,  and  train  the  relatively'-  small  number  of  those 
becoming  of  such  age.  There  never  can  be  a time  when  uni- 
versal military  training  could  be  so  easily  introduced  as  now. 

The  chief  preparation  for  war  in  these  days  is  not  mili- 
tary evolutions  which  constitute  the  chief  part  of  military  train- 
ing. It  is  handling  war  machinery ; the  machine  guns,  the 
cannon,  the  aeroplanes.  These  require  long  and  thoro  train- 
ing of  a few  men.  There  is  no  need  whatever  of  more  than 
an  army  of  officers  and  specialists.  Americans  are  quick  to 
learn;  all  we  need  is  somebody  to  teach  them  when  there  is 
need. 

Even  if  the  general  position  of  the  affirmative  were  valid 
their  demand  is  excessive.  Universal  military  training  would 
prepare  an  army  of  ten  millions  of  men.  The  widest  and 
most  extravagant  militarist  in  the  nation  could  find  no  use 
for  such  an  army  as  that.  It  would  be  like  taking  a fourteen 
inch  cannon  to  shoot  a chicken'  hawk,  or  club  to  brush  off 
a fly.  The  affirmative  demand  is  ridiculously,  monstrously, 
excessive. 

America  is  the  only  nation  which  can  take  the  lead  in  dis- 
couraging military  preparations.  She  is  so  protected  by  her 
geographical  situation  that  no  nation  on  earth  would  be  crazy 
enuf  to  even  think  of  attacking  lier  within  tl:e  next  five  or  ten 


78 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  OKLAHOMA 


years,  and  all  the  nations  of  the  world  know  this.  If  we  go 
to  making  preparations  our  influence  for  peace  is  at  an  end. 
We  cannot  be  trusted  as  a peaceable  nation  while  we  go  on 
preparing  for  war. 

The  militarists  pretend  that  they  want  military  training 
for  physical  development  of  our  young  men,  and  that  they  do 
not  expect  them  to  ever  have  to  fight.  Well,  if  physical 
training  is  all  they  are  after,  why  don’t  they  go  in  for  physical 
training?  It  would  not  cost  a fraction  of  what  military  train- 
ing would  cost;  it  would  be  open  to  no  objections;  it  would  pro- 
vide for  the  young  women  also.  The  truth  is  that  physical 
development  is  only  a pretext.  It  is  mere  camouflage. 

It  is  argued  that  universal  military  training  would  endanger 
the  freedom  of  labor.  The  whole  experience  of  history  is 
against  this  opinion;  and  the  reasons  are  evident.  If  there 
is  universal  military  training  laboring  men  get  more  of  it 
than  their  opponents  because  there  are  so  many  more  of  them. 
Then  when  laboring  men  unite  they  do  not  form  a mob  but 
an  army  and  can  get  their  rights;  and  at  the  same  time  their 
military  training  would  be  the  best  possible  insurance  against 
mobs. 

The  negative  bring  up  purely  theoretical  testimony  to  show 
that  military  training  is  not  good  physical  exercise;  that  it 
does  not  build  up  health  and  physical  efficiency.  Why  do 
they  do  that  when  we  have  right  before  our  eyes  the  proof 
from  thousands  and  tens  of  thousands  of  actual  cases  where 
military  training  produced  great  improvement,  and  the  im- 
provement was  common  to  all  classes  of  soldiers.  The  ef- 
fects of  the  physical  training  were  magnificent,  wonderful,  and 
to  the  last  degree,  undeniable. 

It  takes  nearly  or  quite  as  long  to  mobilize  the  equipment, 
food  supplies,  transportation,  etc.  of  a modern  army  as  it  does 
to  train  an  army.  In  fact,  during  the  last  war  we  got  the 
army  ready  long  before  we  got  cannon,  machine  guns,  and 
aeroplanes.  An  army  would  be  useless  without  enormous 
military  stores  and  supplies.  But  they  would  not  keep;  they 
have  to  be  provided  only  when  war  is  in  sight.  We  might 
spend  millions  in  guns  and  equipments  which  would  be  sent  to 
the  scrap  heap  by  new  inventions. 

In  the  last  war,  our  soldiers  at  least  had  to  fight  without 
adequate  supplies  of  cannon,  machine  guns,  and  aeroplanes. 
There  was  where  we  lackt  preparation.  To  send  an  army  into 
a modern  battle  without  ample  equipment  is  wholesale  murder. 


UNIVERSAL  MILITARY  TRAINING 


79 


The  negative  favor  this  sort  of  preparation  because  it  is  real 
effective  preparation.  LTniversal  military  training  vVithout 
corresponding  preparation  in  armament  and  equipment  would 
be  utterly  futile.  If  the  latter  is  amply  provided  the  former 
is  not  needed  voluntary  enlistments  are  ample. 

We  have  inherited  our  American  institutions  from  our 
fathers.  The}"  are  not  ours  to  squander  or  jeopardise,  but  to 
transmit  to  those  who  are  to  come  after  us.  Our  obligations 
to  self  protection  are  not  for  our  own  sakes  only  or  even 
chiefly,  but  to  protect  these  priceless  institutions  which  are  not 
ours,  but  which  we  hold  in  trust  for  posterity  and  for  human- 
ity. To  deliberately  refuse  to  do  anything  and  everything 
that  can  be  done  to  preserve  this  heritage  is  more  than  a 
blunder;  it  is  the  supremest  crime  .a  breach  of  trust,  a betrayal 
of  posterity. 

Most  of  the  governments  of  the  world  still  believe  in  war. 
Many  others  object  to  it  but  do  not  believe  that  there  , is  any 
substitute  for  it;  that  war  is  inevitable.  Whether  we  like  it 
or  not,  we  live  in  that  kind  of  a world.  The  affirmative  does 
not  believe  in  military  training  because  we  believe  in  war;  we 
are  as  much  opposed  to  war  as  the  negative  is.  We  believe 
in  military  training  because  there  is  no  other  ultimate  pro- 
tection that  we  can  absolutely  depend  on.  The  negative  can 
offer  us  nothing,  they  cannot  even  suggest  anything.  They 
merely  ask  us  to  take  chances. 

Japan  and  China  are  good  illustrations  of  both  sides  of  this 
question.  Japan  has  less  than  one-eighth  of  the  population  of 
China,  and  not  a fraction  of  her  resources,  and  yet  Japan 
ranks  with  the  greatest  nations  in  the  world  and  China  is  a 
football  kickt  with  impunity  by  any  nation  that  wishes  to 
indulge  in  that  pastime.  Absolutely  helpless,  China  is  ap- 
pealing to  outside  nations  now  to  protect  her  from  little  Japan. 
It  is  all  right  for  China  to  want  peace;  we  honor  her  for  that; 
but  she  must  take  the  right  way  to  get  it.  A nation  must 
be  able  to  protect  herself  or  she  can  have  no  standing  among 
nations. 

The  Republic  of  ancient  Rome  had  a large  army.  Tho 
maintaind  ostensibly  for  protection  against  foren  foes  it  in- 
evitably got  mixt  up  in  domestic  controversies,  so  that  the 
day  came  when  rival  candidates  had  an  army  back  of  them 
and  political  strife  became  civil  war.  It  is  a lesson  for  the 
.\mcrican  republic.  We  may  safely  have  a large  army  when 
we  have  something  definite  for  it  to  do;  but  to  have  an  idle 


80 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  OKLAHOMA 


army  on  the  supposition  that  Satan  will  not  find  anything  for 
idle  hands  to  do  has,  in  all  our  history,  been  deemd  a danger- 
ous policy;  a policy  which  there  is  no  immediate  reason  for 
abandoning. 

What  we  think  of  war  does  not  matter;  that  does  not  enter 
into  the  question  at  all.  The  only  question  is  what  will  in- 
fallibly protect  our  nation  and  its  institutions.  We  choose 
weapons  not  according  to  our  personal  tastes  but  to  meet  the 
dangers  arrayed  against  us.  What  would  we  think  of  a man 
who  would  choose  a penknife  or  walking  stick  for  protection 
against  a pack  of  wolves  because  those  utensils  were  person- 
ally more  agreeable  to  him.  Sanity  would  require  that  wc 
choose  military  training  as  a protection  because  that  is  what 
every  other  nation  on  earth  is  doing.  It  is  the  only  thing  that 
can  give  us  any  real  protection. 

Even  if  we  were  willing  to  take  our  chances  on  a policy  of 
non-preparation  for  our  own  individual  interests,  what  right 
have  we  to  use  such  a policy  in  taking  care  of  a trust.  Wc 
may  run  risks  with  what  is  our  own  but  we  have  no  right  t« 
take  chances  in  caring  for  that  which  is  entrusted  to  us.  Wc 
may  experiment  with  our  own  matters  but  we  have  no  shad- 
ow of  right  to  experiment  with  the  vital  interests  and  wel- 
fare of  others.  Universal  military  training  will  render  us 
safe;  as  safe  as  anything  can  be  in  this  world.  No  other 
plan  offers  us  any  security  whatever;  the  negative  can  only 
tell  us  that  they  hope  nobody  will  attack  us. 

The  affirmative  make  much  of  the  claim  that  they  wish  us 
to  prepare  for  defense  only,  not  for  attack.  That’s  exactly 
what  the  Germans  have  been  saying  for  a generation  past. 
But  they  say,  “we  are  not  Germany.”  The  question  is  not 
what  we  think  of  ourselves  and  our  intentions  but  what  the 
rest  of  the  world  think  of  them.  We  may  think  ourselves 
paragons  of  righteousness  and  justice  but  that  has  no  weight 
in  this  discussion.  The  rest  of  the  world  think  that  we  are 
human  beings;  they  do  not  think  that  we  wear  wings  under 
our  cloaks;  they  are  more  likely  to  think  that  we  wear  daggers 
if  we  go  to  making  such  enormous  military  preparations. 

It  is  not  a question  of  what  ought  to  be  or  would  be  in 
an  ideal  world;  it  is  a question  of  what  IS.  A nation  with  no 
power  to  enforce  her  will  has  little  or  no  influence  among 
the  nations  of  the  world.  We  may  remonstrate  with  nations 
for  being  so  naughty;  we  may  entreat  them  to  be  good,  but 
by  doing  so  we  only  succeed  in  making  ourselves  ridiculous 


UNIVERSAL  MILITARY  TRAINING 


81 


Can’t  the  negative  see  that  the  world  has  not  yet  reacht  the 
condition  where  such  methods  are  practicable;  that  all  ef- 
fective power  among  nations  rests  on  force?  It  is  folly  to 
argue  about  an  ideal  world  when  we  don’t  have  it.  We 
must  govern  ourselves  by  the  facts  of  the  world  of  this  day  as  we 
find  them. 

The  affirmative  advise  that  we  make  extravagant  prepara- 
tion for  war  and  then  advocate  peace.  But  who  would  be- 
lieve us?  If  we  believe  in  peace  we  must  act  accordingly;  we 
must  trust  peaceful  methods  and  policies.  We  can  run  sonic 
risks  of  war  for  the  sake  of  universal  peace.  If  one  mem- 
ber of  the  League  of  Nations  shows  clearly  that  it  has  no 
confidence  in  it  what  effect  would  it  have  on  the  other  mem- 
bers? What  good  would  it  do  to  hold  out  our  left  hand 
to  a neighbor  as  a token  of  peaceful  intentions  when  she 
knows  perfectly  well  that  we  hold  a dagger  in  the  right  hand. 
Extravagant  military  preparation  makes  a farce  of  all  our 
efforts  for  universal  peace. 

A large  army  would  be  certain  to  embroil  us  in  foren 
troubles  and  controversies.  A large  idle  army  would  want 
something  to  do.  They  would  not  enjoy  loafing  around  a 
camp  all  their  lives.  Every  time  there  was  a chance  to  mix 
up  in  a foren  affair  they  would  be  eager  to  go.  And  they 
would  marshall  all  the  influence  they  could  command  in  favor 
of  such  policies,  and  so  would  be  a constant  menace  to  the 
peacableness  of  our  foren  relations.  But  we  must  have  pro- 
tection in  some  way.  The  only  alternative  to  a large  standing- 
army  is  universal  military  training  so  that  soldiers  would  all 
be  engaged  in  civil  pursuits  till  there  was  actual  need  of 
their  services  in  the  army. 

If  we  go  to  making  extensive  military  preparations  it  is  as 
certain  as  anything  can  be  that  it  will  cause  other  nations  to 
make  more  preparations  than  they  otherwise  would.  If  then, 
we  double  our  preparadness  and  other  nations  do  the  same, 
how  are  we  relatively  any  better  protected  than  we  are  now? 
While  we  may  be  better  prepared  for  defense  others  are  equally 
better  prepared  for  attack.  And  so  it  will  go  on  without  end; 
there  is  no  hope  in  that  policy.  Europe  has  tried  it  for  cen- 
turies; the  only  effect  is  to  make  wars  more  terrible;  it  does 
not  prevent  them  in  the  least?  Why  ,then,  follow  this  stupid, 
suicidal  policy  any  longer?  -We  know  that  it  always  has 
failed,  and  that  it  must  fail  as  long  as  it  is  tried. 


82 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  OKLAHOMA 


There  is  no  disputing  the  fact  that  the  real  desire  of  at 
least  very  many  of  the  advocates  of  universal  military  train- 
ing is  to  have  an  army  ready  so  it  can  be  used  in  coercing 
labor.  It  is  an  idea  as  old  as  ancient  Rome;  it  has  always 
been  the  view  of  the  privileged  classes  of  Europe  that  a reg- 
ular army  could  be  depended  upon  to  fight  for  the  King  and 
aristrocracy ; and  this  has  generally  been  the  case.  In  a labor 
struggle  it  would  be  evidently  impossible  to  recruit  an  army 
by  voluntary  enlistments.  It  is  necessary  to  have  an  army  not 
in  touch  with  the  masses  of  the  people  and  whose  officers 
were  in  close  social  touch  and  sympathy  with  the  wealthy  and 
privileged  classes.  In  many  European  nations  a military 
career  ,was  the  only  one  open  to  sons  of  the  aristrocacy.  It 
may  be  that  this  is  best — we  are  not  discussing  that — but  let 
the  matter  be  clearly  understood. 

Now  is  the  peace  crisis  of  all  history.  There  never  was 
a time  when  everything  that  in  the  least  looks  towards  war 
should  be  avoided.  It  cannot'  possibly  be  claimd  that  we 
need  military  training  right  now.  We  have  four  million  men 
already  trained  and  enormous  stores  of  muitious  and  arms. 
There  never  was  less  need  for  anything  than  there  is  for  uni- 
versal military  training  in  the  United  States  right  now,  or  will 
be  for  a number  of  years.  We  are  trying  to  establish  a League 
of  Nations  to  prevent  war.  What  chance  has  such  a 
league  to  succeed  if  the  chief  nations  show  that  they  have  no 
confidence  in  it?  Even  if  the  arguments  of  the  affirmative 
were  valid  as  general  principles,  they  are  not  valid  under  the 
conditions  which  just  now  exist.  The  chief  business  of  the 
world  now  is  to  establish  the  League  of  Nations ; if  that  fails 
than  it  will  be  time  enuf  to  talk  of  universal  military  training. 

In  America  we  all  believe  in  the  rights  of  labor;  we  wish 
to  see  labor  get  far  more  than  it  has  ever  received;  but  we 
must  not  overlook  the  fact  that  labor  is  not  always  wisely 
led.  In  the  past  year  labor  has  not  been  following  its  own 
leaders  even.  This  is  the  universal  experience  of  all  his- 
tory. It  has  been  labor’s  calamity  to  be  often  led  by  im- 
practical visionaries,  by  selfish  demagogs.  Napoleon  was 
such  a leader.  He  appeared  as  a champion  of  the  common 
people  and  ended  by  establishing  himself  as  a monarch  more 
autocratic  than  the  Bourbons.  The  same  thing  happened  in 
the  recent  revolution  in  China;  Yuan-Shi-Ki  was  elected  presi- 
dent but  soon  declared  himself  emperor.  Tho  the  attempt 
faild  it  shows  the  tendency.  The  recent  experience  of  Russia 


UNIVERSAL  MILITARY  TRAINING 


83 


is  another  illustration.  In  the  end,  labor  always  suffers  most 
by  the  breaking  down  of  law  by  mob  rule.  No  state  can  exist  or 
ever  did  exist  unless  mob  rule  and  the  demagog  are  kept  in 
abeyance.  The  plea  that  the  military  might  be  used  against 
labor  riots  is  dangerous  demagogry. 

SUGGESTED  QUESTIONS  TO  AID  IN  BRINGING  OUT 
THE  CHIEF  ISSUES 

1.  Is  a modern  Nation  safe  without  an  army?  2.  Would 
the  League  of  Nations  entirely  do  away  with  the  need  of  an  army? 
3.  Even  if  a people  thought  a foren  government  would  be  better 
for  them  than  their  own  would  they  be  justified  in  surrendering 
their  liberties?  4.  Is  a government  something  a people  can  do  what 
they  wish  with,  or  is  it  a trust  for  future  generations?  5.  Would 
the  influence  of  the  United  States  among  the  nations  of  the  earth 
be  increast  or  diminisht  by  universal  military  training?  6.  If 
increast  would  it  be  due  to  fear  or  to  increast  moral  influence? 
7.  Would  the  need  of  military  training  be  increast  or  decreast  by 
the  League  of  Nations?  8.  To  what  would  a nation’s  influence 
in  the  League  be  chiefly  due?  9.  Under  the  actual  conditions  that 
exist  can  a nation  be  protected  without  military  training  sometime, 
somehow,  somewhere?  10.  Is  the  real  question,  then,  under  what 
conditions  shall  it  be  given?  11.  Has  anyone  a right  to  live  in  a 
country  for  whose  protection  he  is  not  willing  to  do  his  share?  12. 
Do  the  affirmative  believe  in  universal  military  training  because  they 
like  it,  or  because  they  deem  it  necessary?  13.  Will  one  ambitious 
and  unscrupulous  nation  always  ready  for  war  compel  all  other 
nations  to  be  ready  also? 

14.  Can  we  get  an  army  ready  in  time  after  danger  of  attack 
appears?  15.  Is  an  unprepared  nation  more  likely  to  have  war 
forced  on  it?  16.  Would  a difficulty  be  settled  by  an  unprepared 
nation  submitting  to  wrong?  17.  How  do  China  and  Japan  illus- 
trate preparedness  and  unpreparedness?  18.  If  France  had  been 
as  little  prepared  for  war  as  England  and  the  United  States  how 
would  the  Great  War  have  resulted?  19.  Make  a list  of  the  dif- 
ferences preparation  would  make  in  the  attitude  of  nations  to- 
wards each  other?  20.  Is  the  effect  of  preparedness  to  temporarily 
or  permanently  prevent  war?  21.  What  effect  would  a nation’s 
preparedness  or  lack  of  it  have  on  its  influence  with  other  nations? 
22.  Does  a nation  with  right  intentions  need  to  be  prepared  for 
war?  23.  If  zeppelins  should  attack  one  of  our  large  cities  would 
the  nation  have  to  pay  for  the  damage  done?  24.  Is  it  the  duty  of 
nations  to  protect  its  citizens?  25.  Can  it  do  it  without  an  army? 


84 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  OKLAHOMA 


26.  How  long  does  it  take  to  prepare  an  army  for  modern  warfare? 

27.  How  did  our  selected  draft  soldiers  compare  with  European 
soldiers?  28,  Would  an  army  of  ten  millions  be  useless  without 
equipment?  29.  How  would  that  affect  the  attitude  of  the  makers 
of  military  equipment?  30.  Is  industrial  preparedness  also  nec- 
essary? 31.  Could  we  prepare  an  army  in  less  time  than  in 
1917-8?  32.  If  we  had  been  attackt  by  a great  Power  what  would 
have  happened  while  we  were  getting  ready?  33.  Can  an  army 
be  prepared  while  other  necessary  preparations  are  being  made? 

34.  Is  a well  armd  and  prepared  nation  more  likely  to  attack 
some  other  nation  than  one  which  is  unarmd  and  unprepared?  35. 
Which  would  make  the  greater  efforts  to  settle  disputes  by  arbitra- 
tion or  diplom.acy?  36.  Which  would  be  more  unyielding  in  interna- 
tional controversies?  37.  What  chance  have  military  men  lor 
success,  fame,  or  achievement  without  war?  38.  Is  that  apt  to 
affect  their  attitude  towards  war?  39.  Are  “conscientious  ob- 
jectors” always  right?  40.  Should  their  convictions  be  respected? 

41.  Why  should  a large  army  be  desired  by  the  rich  more  than 
l)y  the  poor?  42.  Which  would  suffer  more  by  an  invasion?  43. 
Which  would  suffer  miore  ultimately?  44.  Could. military  training 
be  made  to  bear  equally  on  rich  and  poor  alike?  45,  Could  the 
poor  spare  the  time  for  it  as  easily  as  the  rich?  46.  Do  the  in- 
terests of  the  poor  require  it  as  miuch  as  the  interests  of  the  rich? 

47.  If  we  had  universal  military  training  should  any  be  exempted? 

48.  Are  military  forces  desired  for  any  other  purpose  than  re- 
pelling foren  invasions?  49.  What  effect  would  universal  military 
training  have  on  strikes?  50.  What  on  mobs  and  other  disorders? 
51.  Is  a citizen  army  more  likely  to  be  used  to  oppress  the  peo- 
ple or  to  defend  them. in  case  of  domestic  controversies? 

52.  How  large  an  army  would  universal  military  training  give 
us?  53.  Do  we  need  that  large  an  army?  54.  Why  make  train- 
ing universal  if  it  is  not  needed?  55,  Would  it  bear  equally  on 
all?  56.  Would  men  out  of  work  be  wronged  as  much  as  those 
in  important  positions?  57.  Why  should  all  be  drafted  alike  if 
all  are  not  needed?  58.  Can  v/e  depend  on  volunteers  to  keep  as 
large  an  army  as  we  need?  59.  How  could  a universal  military 
training  law  be  enforced?  60.  Would  it  have  to  be  enforced  by 
local  authorities,  by  the  State,  or  by  the  National  Government?  61. 
Would  we  have  to  create  new  machinery  for  its  enforcement?  62. 
What  effect  would  it  have  on  our  foren  population?  63.  Do  a 
majority  of  our  young  men  favor  universal  military  training?  64. 
Why  don’t  they  take  it  voluntarily  then  ? 65.  Should  the  rest  of  the 
people  force  such  a law^  on  them?  66.  Are  the  young  men  of  mil- 


UNIVERSAL  MILITARY  TRAINING 


85 


itary  age  less  patriotic  and  loyal  than  the  rest  of  the  people?  67. 
Would  the  young  men  volunteer  if  they  believed  it  necessary?  68. 
Would  all  of  them  volunteer?  69.  Should  those  who  do  not  be 
rewarded  for  not  doing  so?  70.  Should  the  brave,  generous,  ‘and 
loyal  preserve  the  nation  for  the  benefit  of  the  cowardly,  selfish,  and 
disloyal  ? 

71.  How  could  we  tell  how  large  an  army  to  prepare?  72. 
If  we  had  universal  military  training  would  we  have  to  have  ex- 
emption boards?  73.  Should  there  be  uniform  exemption  laws, 
or  should  .each  board  use  its  own  judgment?  74.  Could  as  good 
men  be  got  for  exemption  boards  in  time  of  peace  as  in  war 
times?  75.  Would  you  compel  non-naturalized  citizens  to  serve? 
78.  What  effect  would  universal  military  training  have  on  the  num- 
ber and  status  of  aliens  among  us?  79.  Could  Universal  military 
training  be  made  “universal?” 

80.  ’ Are  those  most  in  favor  of  military  training  the  ones  who 
would  take  it?  81.  If  they  had  to,  how  would  it  affect  thir 
opinions?  82.  Could  military  training  be  universal  without  being 
made  compulsory?  83.  Should  those  unwilling  to  take  it  be 
drafted?  84.  Would  those  who  resist  the  draft  be  real  criminals? 
85.  Should  they  be  shut  up  with  murderers,  horsethieves,  etc.?  86. 
Does  the  decision  of  the  majority  make  a thing  morally  right  or 
only  legally  right?  87.  Should  the  time  for  mdlitary  training  be 
taken  from  school  time,  or  from  the  time  when  young  men  are 
entering  life  work?  88.  Would  it  interfere  very  much  with  our  reg- 
ular American  m.ode  of  life?  89.  Why  do  educators  generally 
oppose  military  training  in  schools?  90.  What  part  could  women 
have  in  military  training?  91.  What  effect  would  its  introduction 
in  schools  have  on  the  daily  schedule?  92.  WTat  could  the  girls 
and  the  reiected  boys  do  during  the  drill  hours? 

93.  What  are  the  essential  features  of  the  Swiss  system?  94. 
Could  we  introduce  it  without  interference  with  schools?  95. 
Some  modification  of  the  Swiss  system  has  been  advocated  in  this 
for  several  years;  has  anyone  stated  definitely  just  what  modifica- 
tions? Why?  96.  Can  military  training  be  given  in  the  schools? 

97.  Are  military  gymnastics  the  kind  needed  by  school  children? 

98.  What  should  be  the  exact  scope  of  military  training?  99.  Should 
all  have  exactly  the  same  training?  ICO.  Should  it  include  sani- 
tary engineering,  chemical  and  civil  engineering?  101.  Should  it 
include  nursing,  transportation,  handling  supplies,  etc.?  102.  Should 
it  include  office,  clerical,  and  administrative  work?  103.  Is  industrial 
preparedness  equally  necessary?  104.  Should  it  include  navy, 
aeroplane,  artillery,  etc.?  105.  Would  some  of  these  require  longer 


86 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  OKLAHOMA 


time  than  others? 

106,  Is  soldier  life  as  conductive  to  good  morals  as  life  at 
home?  107.  Why  are  there  more  murders,  mobs,  assaults,  lynch- 
ings,  etc.,  in  the  United  States  than  in  any  other  civilized  nation? 
108.  Would  military  training  be  likely  to  improve  our  record  in  that 
respect?  109.  Military  training  enforces  habits  of  obedience;  is  it 
the  same  kind  of  obedience  required  in  civil  life?  110.  Are  sol- 
diers more  moral  than  other  men?  111.  Is  soldier  training  identi- 
cal with  citizenship  training?  112.  May  a soldier  use  his  own  judg- 
ment? 113.  Would  military  training  develop  the  judgment  needed 
at  the  ballot  box?  114.  What  is  the  effect  of  military  training  on 
health?  115.  Can  the  same  results  be  obtained  some  other  way? 

116.  Does  national  safety  take  the  precedence  of  everything 
else  whatever?  117.  What  real  protection  does  the  negative  offer? 
118.  Would  military  training  afford  certain  protection?  119. 
Would  anything  offered  by  the  negative  do  it?  120.  Should  our 
conduct  in  this  matter  be  determined  by  ideal  theories  of  what  ought 
to  be,  or  hy  the  actual  facts  that  confront  us?  121.  Even  if 
national  safety  could  ultimately  be  secured  without  universal  mili- 
tary training  can  it  be  for  the  next  ten  years?  122.  What  would 
he  the  use  of  protection  after  our  nation  is  defeated  and  destroyed? 
123.  Would  the  application  of  Christianity  solve  the  problem?  124, 
Must  the  burdens  of  militarism  become  intolerable?  125.  Is  the 
future  safe  either  with  armies  or  without  them?  126.  What  can 
we  do  about  it? 


BIBLLOGRAPHY 

(The  first  figure  indicates  the  volume;  the  second  figure  the 
page.) 

SCHOOL  AND  SOCIETY,  Garrison,  N.  Y.  10c. 

9:25;  Military  Training  in  Colleges. 

8:438;  Baseball,  a Boy’s  game.  J.  M.  Taylor. 

8:529;  Essentials  of  Physical  Education  in  relation  to  Military 
Training.  F.  L.  Kleeberger. 

8:17:  Military  Instruction  for  College  Students. 

8:72;  Military  Training  at  Columbia  University. 

8:644;  Military  Training  for  Boys  in  N.  Y.  State. 

6:762;  Military  Training  in  the  Schools. 

2:694;  Should  there  be  military  training  in  public  schools?  L. 
P.  Lochner. 

1 :289 ; Should  our  educational  system  include  studies  which 
prepare  for  war?  N.  C.  Schaefer. 

2 :789 ; Broader  Program  for  Physical  Education. 


UNIVERSAL  MILITARY  TRAINING 


87 


3:460;  Military  Drill  in  Public  Schools. 

3 :751 ; Military  training  in  Colleges  and  Schools. 

3:278;  Military  training  in  American  high  schools.  C.  H. 
Johnston. 

3:317;  Military  Training  in  Colleges. 

4:102;  National  Educational  Association  and  Military  Train- 
ing in  Schools. 

4 :9 ; A Schoolmaster’s  view  of  compulsory  military  training. 
WORLD’S  WORK.  Garden  City,  N.  Y.  35c. 

37:705;  University  Training  and  Officers. 

37:547;  What  kind  of  Military  Training? 

3:16;  Shall  we  adopt  Universal  military  Service?  Chas.  W. 
Elliott. 

29:419;  Military  Preparedness  without  Militarism.  A Willert. 
32:138;  Preparedness  vs.  Militarism. 

CURRENT  OPINION.  65  W.  35,  N.  Y.  25c. 

64 :399 ; What  enlisted  men  think  of  our  Military  System. 

59 :7 ; Should  we  adopt  the  Swiss  Army  system  ? 

61:115;  Compulsory  Military  Training  in  the  Schools  and  the 
national  need  for  preparedness. 

THE  NEW  REPUBLIC.  421  W.  21st  St.,  N.  Y.  10c. 

6 ;266 ; Real  Implications  of  Conscription.  Norman  Angell. 
6:309;  Universal  Service  as  Education.  John  Dewey. 

7 ;217 ; A Moral  Equivalent  for  Universal  Military  Service, 

Randolph  Bourne. 

7:318;  Military  folly  in  N.  Y. 

THE  NATION.  20  Vesey  Street,  N.  Y.  10c. 

107:69;  Universal  Military  Training,  C.  F.  Goodrich. 

109:334;  Framed  in  France;  propaganda  for  Univ.  Mil.  Train- 
ing, H.  J.  Hibschman. 

108 :973 ; Amer.  Militarism  Waning. 

101:402;  Conscription;  Summary  of  Arguments  for  and 
against.  J.  F.  Muirhead. 

102:518;  Fear  God  and  Take  your  own  Part.  T.  Roosevelt. 
97:278;  Must  we  all  Bear  Arms? 

101:715;  Sweet  Voices  of  Conscription.  W.  R.  Browne. 
102:510;  Universal  Military  Service  Cure-all. 

LIVING  AGE,  41  Mt.  Vernon  St.,  Boston,  Mass.  15c. 

300:337;  Was  Lord  Roberts  right?  Lord  Haldane. 
EVERYBODY’S.  Spring  & MacDougal  Sts.,  N.  Y.  25c. 

40:9:  Lest  We  Forget;  A.  Roosevelt. 

32:120;  America  on  Guard.  T.  Roosevelt. 

34:150;  Wyoming’s  Answer  to  Militarism.  Geo.  Creel. 


88  THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  OKLAHOMA 

THE  DIAL,  152  W.  13th,  N.  Y.  10c. 

66:470;  Mili  ary  Training  in  Education.  J.  J.  McSwain. 
66:71;  Military  Training  in  Education.  G.  Soule. 

77  ;137 ; Military  Paternalism  and  Industrial  unrest.  G.  Rob- 
inson. 

LITERARY  DIGEST,  354  Fourth  Ave.,  N.  Y.  10c. 

62:14;  To  Raise  all  our  Boys  to  be  Soldiers. 

51 :917 ; Our  Holiday  Recruits. 

53:186;  Military  Drill  in  Public  Schools. 

REVIEW  OF  REVIEWS,  30  Irving  Place,  N.  Y.  35c. 

58:173;  Military  Training  at  Princeton.  J.  G.  Hibbeia. 

52 :608 ; Compulsory  Military  Service. 

54:339;  Democratic  Aspects  of  Universal  Military  Service. 

53  :^49 ; Swiss  and  Australian  Military  Systems,  F.  L.  Huide- 
koper. 

52:577:  Military  Training  in  Public  Schools.  L.  M.  Green,  and 
A.  Gradenwitz. 

52 :301 ; The  Plattsburg  Response.  W.  Menkel. 

52:260;  Where  Education  Fails. 

53:201:  Training  Student  Soliders.  W.  Rushton. 

53:570;  What  Shall  we  do  for  our  boys.  C.  F.  Goodrich. 
53:351:  Military  Training  in  Land  Grant  Colleges. 

54:216;  Fundamentals  of  Military  Training. 

THE  PUBLIC,  5th  Ave.,  and  13th  St.,  N.  Y.  10c. 

21 :490 ; Betraying  our  Cause. 

THE  INDEPENDENT:  119  w.  40,  N.  Y.  10c. 

93:318;  Corporal  Bill  on  a Hike. 

£4 :372 ; Comp,  Service  in  a Democracy  at  War. 

85:15;  Training  our  Youth  for  Defense.  G.  R.  Chamberlain. 
89:22;  Military  Mind.  W.  T.  Colyer. 

82:532;  Colleges  and  National  defense.  J.  G.  Hibben. 

82:92;  Military  Training  for  College  Students. 

85  :253  ; Military  in  Public  Schools. 

THE  OUTLOOK,  381  Fourth  Ave.,  N.  Y.  10c. 

119:105;  Training  Young  Americans.  C.  K.  Taylor. 

112:307;  Making  of  Citizen  Soldiers. 

113:918;  The  last  Gasp  of  Voluntaryism,  C.  L.  Hall. 

THE  FORUM,  118  E.  28th,  N.  Y.  30. 

50 :385 ; Permanent  Military  Machine  Necessary ; is  it  com- 
patible with  democracy?  G.  E.  Chamberlain. 

Sept.  T6:294;  Collapse  of  our  Militarism. 

Nov.  ’16;  Solving  the  Hyphen.  H.  Breckenridge. 

SCIENCE,  Garrison,  N.  Y.  10c. 


UNIVERSAL  MILITARY  TRAINING 


89 


49:404;  Some  Physical  Improvements  in  National  Army  Men 
under  Mil.  Training.  E.  M.  Hildebrandt. 


EDUCATIONAL  REVIEW,  Easton,  Pa.  35c. 

55:410;  Mil.  Training  in  high  schools.  E.  L.  Hildebrandt. 
THE  SURVEY,  112  E.  19th  St.,  N.  Y.  10c. 

v39:660;  The  President  against  Military  Training. 

42:859;  Preparing  for  Preparedness.  R.  D.  Leigh. 

35  :743 ; Preparedness  and  the  People.  W.  O.  Thompson. 

36 :201 ; Army  as  a School  Service.  C.  J.  Post. 

36:615;  National  Straight  Jacket  inside  out. 

36:127;  Save  the  little  red  school  house.  C.  A.  Thomas. 
36:418;  Resolutions  of  the  N.  E.  A.  on  military  Training  in 
schools.  W.  D.  Lane. 


HARPER’S  WEEKLY,  119  W.  40th  St.,  N.  Y.  10c. 

61 :55 ; Swiss  Army  Lesson,  Norman  Hapgood. 

61:79;  What  we  Need,  L.  M.  Garrison. 

61:172;  Range  Finders.  H.  D.  Wheeler. 

61:201;  Plattsburg — What  is  it?  H.  D.  Wheeler. 

61 :484 ; The  American  School  Army.  K.  E.  Keller. 

62:271;  The  Defense  Problem. 

EDUCATION,  120  Boylston  St.,  Boston,  Mass. 

36:611;  Military  Training  in  the  high  school.  David  Snedden. 
See  also  30:92. 

SCHOOL  REVIEW,  University  of  Chicago,  Press.  15c. 

24:156;  Military  Drill  in  the  high  cshools. 

24:312;  Same. 

LADIES’  HOME  JOURNAL.  Philadeplhia,  Pa.  15c. 

33:11;  Your  Boy  and  Mine. 

GENERAL  SOURCES,  (Mostly  free.) 

Your  Congressman.  Washington,  D.  C. 

National  Spcurity  League.  31  Pine  St,  N.  Y. 

American  Union  against  Militarism.  Washington,  D.  C.,  Mun- 
sey  Bldg. 

American  Assn,  for  International  Concilation,  407,  117th  St., 
N.  Y.  10c. 


The  H.  W.  Wilson  Co.,  958  University  Avenue,  N.  Y. 

Books,  etc. 

Annals  American  Academy,  Vol.  66.  Philadelphia.  $1.00. 

G.  L.  Dickenson ; The  Choice  before  Us,  Dodd,  Mead  & Co., 
N.  Y.  $2.00. 

J.  C.  Wise;  The  Call  of  the  Republic,  E.  P.  Dutton,  N.  Y.  $1. 
Lucien  Howe ; Universal  Mil.Edn.  and  Service,  G.  P.  Putnam’s 
Sons,  N.  Y.  $1.25. 


INDEX 


Adams,  John  65 

Bibliografy  86 

Brief  Paragrafs  — 76 

Calkins,  C.  E.  70 

Croly,  Herbert  3 

Dewey,  Prof.  John  69,  72 

Edmands,  Col.  Thomas  F.  69 

Elliott,  Dr.  Chas.  W.  60,  69 

Findley,  Pres.  John  H.  72 

Giddings,  Dr.  F.  H,  14 

Glenn,  Col.  E.  F.  75 

Gompers,  Samuel  71 

Hughes,  Chas.  E.  69,  72 

Huidekoper,  F.  H. 58,  69 

Jackson,  Andrew 68 

Jefferson,  Thomas  66 

Jordan,  David  Starr  69 

Judson,  Dr.  Harry  Pratt  59 

Libbey,  Fredrick  J.  32 

Madison,  James  67 

Military  Training  League  50 

Mitchel,  John  Purroy  71 

Monroe,  James  68 

Nasmyth,  George  20 

Presidents,  Opinion  of  64 

Questions  to  Aid  Study 83 

Sargent,  Dr.  Dudley  A.  60 

Schaeffer,  Dr.  Nathan  C. 72 

Scott,  Gen.  H.  L.  28 

Stratton,  Prof.  G.  M. 72 

Villard,  Oswald  G. 43 

Washington,  George  64 

Wood,  Gen.  Leonard  A.  73 

Wright,  Luke  E. 70 

Young,  Gen.  S.  B.  M. I 40 


